Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 8 April 2016 (→DrChrissy: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)

    In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [1] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

    I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [2]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [3]

    I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [4] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [5], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

    Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [6], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.
    All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you will agree that it is appropriate also to remind editors that volunteer Marek, was banned for his pov-editing on Russia-related topics and is one its the most notorious POV-pushing disruptive editors on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([7]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [8] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [9] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [10] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [11] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [12] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ RobTalk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:
    1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here
    2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here
    3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [13] [14]
    4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here
    5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).
    Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.
    We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [15]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[16] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[17] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [18], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [19] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.
    As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [20] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [21]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
    I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.
    Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [22], [23], [24] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [25] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [26] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [27] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [28] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.
    User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [29], [30], [31]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have a look at the policy page WP:CIVIL, Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have not yet started being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [32], the other by Iryna Harpy. [33] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)
    I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless we want to consider a WP:BOOMERANG against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.
    — User:Alex Bakharev — diff, User:Dstary — diff, User:Anonimski — diff, User:MyMoloboaccount — diff, User:Seryo93 — diff, User:LeoKiev01 — diff, User:Kudzu1 — diff, User:Buzz105 — diff, User:Tobby72 — diff, User:Haberstr — diff. As far as Bloomberg News goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article Human rights in Russia. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to bite the newbies, Marek. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kalidasa 777: The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for WP:BLOCK EVASION, I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page here. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iryna Harpy:You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating WP:BLOCK EVASION, but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kalidasa 777: Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed WP:PPOV. So, when are you going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the WP:LASTWORD and WP:WIN the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running WP:GAMEing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iryna Harpy: You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries: [34] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [35] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [36] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [37] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative per WP:POV pushing, take it to the talk page instead of sneaking in changes under misleading WP:ES.” [38] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [39] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [40] "blatant POV refactoring.” [41] ”no discussion over WP:POV use of 'incorporation'Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you are acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much every single description is accurate. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of WP:GAMEing behavior is warranted too)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of the problem

    1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.
    2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad motive) is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.
    3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.
    4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the motives of others.
    5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [42]: Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. 02:27, 26 March 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs)

    Thanks to Drmies for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know why Kalidasa 777 felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts  :) whatever. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to you, Kalidasa, and to everyone for forgetting to sign the above, and thereby confusing folks.Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. RGloucester? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. That is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're getting the point, Kalidasa 777: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr here is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [44] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, My very best wishes? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. Can we get back on topic now? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of the REAL problem

    A couple users with a history of disruptive editing - Haberst, Tobby72, and Kalidasa 777 - are upset that they're not allowed to push their POV in peace. So Kalidasa 777 starts an ANI threat making nonsense accusations against a well respected and long standing contributor, Iryna, and engages in bad faith'ed canvassing to make sure his buddies show up. They do. And they join in the screaming and crying and hysterics. Haberst, who almost got indefinitely banned for going around accusing other editors of bigotry, and who as a result lay low for awhile, but now decided to come back and restart edit wars from long time ago. And Tobby72 who has been trying to stuff the same text over and over and over and over and over again against consensus for more than a year now and who uses purposefully misleading edit summary to try and mask what he's doing. That's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We want to include the GfK poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.Haberstr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info was included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The GfK survey was removed — diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My very best wishes, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about how the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [45], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — of course people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this being used as a surrogate for the article's talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a lot has been said here, but by a limited number of people. Almost all of them directly involved with the Crimea Annexation page. Input from uninvolved Wikipedians might help to resolve this rather complex and conflicted situation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which particular issue is it that you're asking other editors and admins to 'resolve'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the basic issue here is whether all Wikipedia users have the right to be treated civilly, especially on article talk pages? Or whether (as some seem to think) that right disappears if they've been involved in a content dispute with Iryna Harpy, Volunteer Marek, and RGloucester? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a really ... inaccurate way of portraying the issue, especially given the well documented disruptive editing by Tobby72 and other users above. However, seeing as how nobody uninvolved has bothered to get in on this, it's probably a good idea for you to drop this, rather than keep on beating this dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe someone possesses an everlasting "get out of jail free" card and is understandably just taking advantage of it. This has been going on for years, and will continue for years more. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee campaigning

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

    Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

    Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

    Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

    1. 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing by Scoobydunk
    2. 11 March 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

    Respectfully request:

    1. administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction; and
    2. warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

    Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both Ricky81682 and myself over the past six months or so. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

    I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between HughD and Springee.

    Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([46], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([47]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Thank you, EvergreenFir for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. Both users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [48], Callanecc [49], EdJohnson [50] and Ricky81682 [51]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[52]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here (NickCT and Greglocock on the Pinto talk page, CZmarlin and Historianbuff on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [53] I will happily, voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. Springee (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from Ford Pinto where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Callanecc, who on 18 October 2015 asked Springee:

      There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.

    Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here at ANI at for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am, I think rightly, proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage (70%), but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.
    EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.
    Springee has reported HughD 7 times:
    1. AE 27 December 2015
    2. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
    3. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
    4. 3RN 22 August 2015
    5. 3RN 26 October 2015
    6. 3RN 7 March 2016
    7. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban
    Springee has previously proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN; four times including this current ANI report. I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.
      As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. My enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, Ford Pinto and Chrysler. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being topic banned from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he bizarrely plagiarized my statement of editorial interests from my user page. I don't think Hugh is interested in US Weekly or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that at 3RR and at AE months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD specifically asked him not to post there (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a long time now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:
    Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[54]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[55], added back[56]).
    Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[57] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [58]. My reply is here[59]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[60] and one in frustration (but not attack)[61]. These are not attempts to provoke.
    HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [62]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[63] [64]. My efforts were appriciated[65].
    I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like Arthur Rubin I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. Springee (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

    I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that.

    and

    The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics...I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.

    Unfortunately, this is not the case.
    Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):
    Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee wrote on 28 March 2016: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    HughD, Springee's interpretation is the same as mine. As I was still assuming good faith on your part, I would have said that his block was the result of making an unbelievable assertion in regard his own actions, without saying it was dishonest. With your followups, it was either dishonest or indication of such inability to understand facts as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee followed HughD to a GA review. The above list highlights article space following behavior after Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including Scoobydunk at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing and Fyddlestix at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD, have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.
    But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the Good Article Review of Bernard Stone, a recently passed Chicago alderman, olav ha-sholom, of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional evidence of Springee following HughD In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):
    The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [66] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.
    General replies to HughD's accusations

    HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors.

    HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[67] and RSN[68] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic.

    HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [69]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[70] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off.

    Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[71] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page.

    Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[72].

    Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. Springee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully request the community please proceed with a close with the imposition of the above proposed two-way interaction ban, as the expressed consensus of uninvolved colleagues. Two-way interaction bans are simple to monitor and effective in preventing disruption. Enough is enough. It is long overdue. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Respectfully request imposition of the two-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

    Moved from another ANI thread.

    --QEDK (T 📖 C)

    User:HughD has been disruptively editing our Ford Pinto article. Could an admin review this discussion and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fyddlestix: - Thanks. Yeah. I noticed. I think that discussion is discussing an interaction ban, right? I just think HughD should get topic banned from Ford Pinto. I and others think that HughD has to get topic banned from Ford Pinto. That justifies a second discussion, no? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support banning User:HughD: It's not worth trying to edit the Ford Pinto article with HughD participating. He's basically destroyed any pretense of unbiased editing, and he continues to seriously distort the article.842U (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose a Tban, as the problem extends far beyond just one article or one topic. Conflict between HughD and Springee has made a mess on a much broader range of articles and talk pages, ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Chicago-style politics to Ford Pinto. Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fyddlestix: - re "Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here." - Maybe not. But it would be a start.... NickCT (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support with condition As noted above I don't agree with Fyddlestix in this case. HughD's 50 edits per day before the article was locked, refusal to accept opinions from 3rd party editors and the clear consensus among the other editors that HughD is a problem mean that at least this part of the discussion is not about me. That said, I proposed a two way voluntary interaction ban between HughD and myself that would also include voluntarily leaving the automotive pages in question. Thus it would result in HughD leaving the page but no sanctions would be levied against his account. Please note, tomorrow is a travel day for me and I will have limited web access Springee (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to Talk:Ford Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: - I agree it isn't the main issue, but it's certainly part of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is Ford Pinto still to suffer? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. Springee (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see our project's policy WP:IBAN. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.
    I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.
    Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [73]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.
    List of TEND examples
    • HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages:
    • One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[74] after seeking and getting group consensus [75]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me.
    • Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [76] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [77]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV.
    • violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[78], [79]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [80] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[81]).
    • Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [82].
    • Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[83], [84]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [85],[86]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [87].
    • One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[88].
    • One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[89], 2.[90], 3.[91]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs.
    • One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[92] I asked a specific question [93]. Other editors noted it was not answered [94],[95].
    • One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [96] , [97]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [98].
    • One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [99] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [100], HughD badgers EllenCT [101], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[102]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[103]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [104]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[105]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.
    I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge, you have never commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.
    You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:
    Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see WP:TEND: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague Scoobydunk brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing. Your least favorite essay is WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".
    Then, when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report that at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD WP:NOTHERE.
    Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.
    Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence of disruptive editing. Civil disagreement regarding article content, supported with citation to policy, guidelines, and multiple noteworthy reliable sources, is not disruptive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Springee's project

    Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "traveling."

    Springee's project is HughD. User:Springee is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and Southern Strategy for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, until ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article, and Chicago-style politics his fifth top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

    Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

    I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.

    I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. Please support an interaction ban. We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.
    The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please answer the question Hugh, why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone? Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and let it go, before you exhaust the community's patience. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully request close, with community-initiated 1-year, two-way interaction ban, as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy WP:Interaction ban. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyddlestix, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. Springee (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, please support the proposed 2-way interaction ban, without conditions, as requested above by our uninvolved colleagues. It is a reasonable, measured proposal. It is the simplest thing that might work. It is clearly what's best for you, for me, and for our project. It is a established remedy with a record of effectiveness in curbing disruption. You are in little position to dictate sidecar terms given your well-documented year-long history of following and harassment. We know you feel you deserve a topic ban on HughD after your efforts on your above walls of text, and we know you feel anyone about whom such walls of text can be written must be deserving of a topic ban. However, your recalcitrance on this proposal and your insistence on a topic ban are only serving to further demonstrate to our community your ownership issues and your obsession with your project of banning HughD. No one is trying to prevent you from contributing constructively to any articles. On behalf of our community, may I respectfully ask that you please accept the proposed 2-way interaction ban; you will be happier. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think only a modified IBAN would make sense. Modifications:
    1. Each is banned from articles where the other is a major contributor. If both are major contributors, they are both banned, but A may appeal if A claims that B is only a major contributor in distorting or deleting A's contributions.
    2. Each is permitted to make a brief statement about violations of the other one in appropriate forums. (This may have no effect, as i haven't seen a brief statement by either.) He may not make a followup statement unless asked. (Advice to all; don't ask.)
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin: I think that's an excellent recommendation. + 1 on that. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support with the addition of my previous mentioned March 1 cut off. The cut of means if only one editor was involved with the article prior to March 1 they are allowed to remain involved. I'm 100% OK with HughD and I both agreeing to step away from previous mutual topics. Springee (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Two-way interaction bans, as proposed above by uninvolved colleagues, are simple and well-understood by our community and have an established history of curbing the disruptive following and harassment behavior you have demonstrated over the last year. Your attempt to negotiate terms in contrast is a bizarre custom page ban with an unprecedented boundary definition which in effect codifies your problematic article ownership issues in the form of a community sanction, and is nothing more than an attempt to distract our community from your edit history. "I was there first" does not matter on Wikipedia and our community is not going to start with you. Our community has substantial experience in sorting out interaction ban violation incidents and has absolutely no desire to get involved in helping you enforce your baroque conditions. Please see the above diffs: you have earned an interaction ban many times over, accept it with grace. Hugh (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remind HughD that he has also "earned an interaction ban many times over." You both have. So stop. Just stop. The ever expanding wall of text here when the community long ago reached consensus on an IBAN only serves to further prove why an IBAN was needed. Wait for this discussion to be closed by an admin, then go your merry ways with your IBAN, and let the rest of us live in peace without having to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same thing over and over again. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Close requested

    Been 4 days since last comment. Getting quite stale. Since there was !voting and I proposed an iban, I cannot close or archive this myself. Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For transparency, HughD challenged the closure by Atsme here. Anmccaff reverted that here, which I then reverted here as I don't see anything wrong with HughD's challenge to the closure by a non-admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a problem with simply hiding the request. It should be either noted, as you have done, or struck through, or replied to. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    When admins repeatedly give advice but don't take action in these lengthy debates (more time was even allowed in hopes the involved parties could work it out among themselves) and there's still no resolution, the discussion tends to lay idle which is why closing it seemed the best course of action. If the involved parties are still not satisfied, they can always take it to ArbCom but chances are, neither will like the outcome. Perhaps now an admin will do what needs to be done to put this puppy to bed. Atsme📞📧 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the non-admin closure with the closer may be found at User talk:Atsme#Non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Springee campaigning. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this should be closed as no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties. Hugh has stated he would not accept Springee's reasonable modification of the standard IBAN, and Springee would not accept the standard IBAN due to (Springee's perception) of the fact that Hugh edits articles edited by Springee in order to discredit Springee's edits, but not in the same section Springee is editing. There seems to be no traction in the general community for any specific IBAN, although there seems to be general agreement that an IBAN might be helpful.
    I suspect the non-admin closure was not a good idea, but nothing is going to happen here. I'm clearly involved, so I cannot close this, even if there were consensus for some action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

    Ferakp (talk · contribs) is making source misrepresentations and deleting sourced information:

    • He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [106]
      • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[107]
    • Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [108]
      • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
        • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."
    • He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [110] [111] [112]
      • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [113]
    • He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [114] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [115]
    @92.106.49.6: Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here.[1] Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: [2][3][4]<--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, [5]. All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Ferakp (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/
    2. ^ http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/hatun-sueruecue-zwei-brueder-in-tuerkei-angeklagt-a-1045405.html
    3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4345459.stm
    4. ^ http://www.dw.com/en/german-honor-killing-on-trial-in-turkey/a-19004299
    5. ^ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/05/germ-m17.html
    Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.
    Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [116] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.
    Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the talkpage there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:--92.106.49.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @92.106.49.6: Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source [1]. Here is your source, [2]. Here is my source about declining: [3]. It is from 2015 and it says: In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee. Another source [4] and source even says directly that it is declined "In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated.". About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my Female genital mutilation edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that female genital cutting is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> [5]. About change of this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing. This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.
    I added this Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.

    Changed media to Turkish media because source says so. Other changes are adding more details. I just added more details and neutralized statements. The report from Iraqi Kurdistan is not related to the all Kurds. That's why many were changed to some when all Kurds were mentioned. Also, In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal. Especially under Saddam Hussein, women had many rights and liberties, including strong economic rights. [6] was removed. The source doesn't mention where that information was gathered and it is based to what study. Because the source is blog (thread) and only some of statements are cited, I see it as a unreliable source. In the source, "In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal" statement was not mentioned but another statement was mentioned. However, because it is blog/thread, I see it as unreliable source. As far as I know, blogs and thread in forums are not allowed as sources. I might be wrong. The only mistake I did was removing this statement -- >The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging.[7] However, the source didn't work and I tried very hard to find it but I didn't. The link is still not working. Also, I tried to find the report from the organization's website but I didn't find it. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--92.106.49.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My message to reviewer. I have done nothing wrong except in FGM article, I didn't notice the source. I explained all my changes and this is the first time someone reports me. I have edited and improved tons of times and for me it's normal that there is sometimes users who are against my changes, but I have always solved disputes. If you are going to give me a ban, please give me a permanent ban, not topic ban. I am so tired of users like 92.106.49.6 and similar users which have nothing to do than blackwash articles related to the Kurds. Thank you Ferakp (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/29/iraqi-kurdistan-law-banning-fgm-not-being-enforced
    2. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/29/iraqi-kurdistan-law-banning-fgm-not-being-enforced
    3. ^ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/iraq-kurdistan-draft-amendment-violence-women-law.html#
    4. ^ http://www.stopfgmkurdistan.org/html/english/fgm_e.htm#mape
    5. ^ http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2010/abusing-patients
    6. ^ Kriesberg. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. 1998 http://che.tribe.net/thread/0ae203bb-6aae-4297-a993-83993cf48c7d
    7. ^ "Kurdistan: Over 6,000 Women Killed in 2014". BasNews.
    Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. SarahSV (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There was high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. Ferakp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. WP:NPOV --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [123]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[124], Arabs[125], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [126], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:[reply]
    Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [127], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called Human Rights in Rojava. I transferred those statements and sources from Rojava article to Human rights in Rojava.
    Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[128]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.
    [129] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture. The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. Ferakp (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:
    • On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
    • He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
    • He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
    • He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
    • He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [130] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [131] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [132]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [133].
    • Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, for example Amnesty International use in another their report words"ethnic cleansing" because they classify it as a ethnic cleansing. [1] The reason why they didn't call it ethnic cleansing in the YPG/PYD related article is because it's a far away from to be classified as a ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.
    Which book?
    They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.
    There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Kurdish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.
    What is the problem with this edit, [2]? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: The survey group was small but the results are a reminder... My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.
    Excuse me can you show my your claims about "Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.Ferakp (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/gruesome-evidence-of-ethnic-cleansing-in-northern-iraq-as-islamic-state-moves-to-wipe-out-minorities
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&diff=prev&oldid=700891970
    @SlimVirgin: Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.Ferakp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been caught at least 9 times from blackwashing Kurdish articles, calling me nationalist editor, trying to show my edits which are related to neutralization as blackwashings and following me. You are clearly blackwashing Kurdish articles, as I proved above, if someone has to get warning or ban, it should be you.Ferakp (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on Yaşar Kemal, he posted this to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen here in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly here, where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see this. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen here about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the Yezidis are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly removed negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on Kurdish women without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed more and more reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: here, for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen here, when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
    • Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --GGT (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am 100% behind my messages and edits which you mentioned. About Yasar Kemal, I told you so many times that the person was Kurdish, not a Turk. I added sources and you deleted my sources. I told you to at least keep sources and use talk page until we solve it. Try to understand it, also tell it to your friends who 24/7 try to change Hamdi Ulukaya article to show him as a Turk even though I have tons of articles even his own video about himself.
    I am totally supporting the edit [134]: About the lack of interest, it is Turkish claim. If you read news like this [1] you will realize that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea (Press freedom Index) and nothing unbiased comes from them when it comes to Kurdish related news. So, if the Kurds say that they are not allowed to open schools, they are continuously closed and international newspapers confirm them, is it not a fair to keep one biased Turkish source which claims that they weren't interested.. That's why I showed it as a claim but kept it despite the source was unreliable.
    About Yazidi woman, I am going to repeat again, Dailymail is not reliable source and she is Yazidi not a Kurd. Just read her article and sources related to her. Tons of articles says she is Yazidis and Iraq. Yazidis are not Kurds, they are recognized as different ethnic group by the UN.
    About the edit more: How many times, I have to explain this edit. Let me explain again even though it is already explained. About the first edit, the source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The article said that A 2015 study by Kurdish social anthropologist Kameel Ahmady found and assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. Here comes the problem. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or does it means only Iranin Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran, it is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran so I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect, let me repeat, among the Kurds in Iran, not in Western Iran as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I simply deleted because it was clearly falsified. Statement related to statistics said "is" but it's not true because the source I added clearly said that it is dropped everywhere to under 50% and in some regions, it is almost 0%. If I would have deleted "statistics", I would have deleted that 72% also. I didn't and I leave it because that is true, unlike other statistics about regions which weren't true anymore because I had source for them. I already explained 3 times that the law about FGM is allowed so that statement which says that it is not enforced is not true anymore, that's why I removed it. There is my source above. If you think that edit is wrong, then you simply protect blackwashing Kurdish pages. Keeping falsified statement about FGM, FGM statistics which is not valid anymore and statement about FGM law which also not valid anymore is nothing else than blackwashing. I would have understood if you would have for example presented statistics in table and mentioned that they are from 2011 or 2012 or have said that law wasn't accepted until 2015 but keeping those despite new sources is clearly blackwashing. Ferakp (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-kurds-education-in-mother-tongue-schools.html#

    Removing information negative information can be whitewashing. I don't agree with Ferakp's view that his edits are only aimed at restoring neutrality. Many of them are removing reliably sourced negative information. This conflict looks to me as a typical example of two editors with opposite biases trying to make the article what *they* think is neutral, and then assuming bad faith on the case of the other editor. The only solution is probably to get more editors involved, especially uninvolved neutral editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You better tell this to the user who reported me.This is because the user is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles with another Turkish troll group. The same user who reported me is cooperating with Shadow4dark user, you usually find them and some other users always in same pages blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing Turkish-PKK related pages. For example, Shadow4dark has added Kurdish terrorism category to every Kurdish article he has visited and the user who reported me has cooperated with Shadow4dark, he just deleted speed deletion tag which another user added to the Category:Kurdish terrorism. The user deleted it and didn't explain or use talk page to tell why he/she thinks that it is not meeting speedy deletion requirements. The same user also tried remove my all details which neutralized the Kurdish articles. As I mentioned above, there is clear evidence that this user with other users are doing nothing else than blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing articles related to them. I proved 9 times that this users is deleting newest sources and replacing with oldest ones. Also, this user has showed many my edits as whitewashing even though I proved that they are clearly related to neutralization, just read my messages above.
    I'm telling it to you, FerakP. Although obviously, it goes for all of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OpenFuture, this is not simply a POV conflict. Of course everyone will have their perceptions of neutrality and of course some inherent bias may be present on my part. That goes without saying. However, having been involved in numerous debates about this volatile and politically sensitive region (and never raised one issue here at ANI about any user), it is very clear to me that this is not about a POV conflict (which would look like this) and that there is an important behavioural problem about this user that is certainly not the case with other users I have disputed with. Consistently adding unsourced, editorialised content based on one's perception of events, manipulating the content of sources (just as he did in his recent text about Yaşar Kemal) whilst consistently removing reliably sourced content on trivial pretexts, whilst continuously accusing others at every dispute of "blackwashing", "disruptive editing", "collaborating" is not a POV problem. It is a behavioural problem and is tendentious and disruptive editing. My having different perceptions of neutrality whilst pointing out a destructive editing pattern that continues despite warnings does not invalidate concerns raised about his editing pattern and does not reduce this to an "it goes for all of you" dispute. The editing patterns of other users here, I believe, are incomparable to that of Ferakp, who has not expanded a single article without adding positive material about Kurdish people or negative material about other ethnic groups. For all his activity on content issues, this user has only created one original article and the subject matter of that article speaks for itself. For all his stance about Kurds, which in other circumstances would be perfectly fine, he has not even expanded one Kurdish-related (or otherwise) article when ethnic issues or negative material about Kurds were not at stake. --GGT (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    GGT Check my edits again, think twice, read your answer again and think again, is it really true what you just wrote here. About Yasar Kemal, I added sources and told you that sources say so. You can't force anyone to be "Turkish" if he is not. You removed details about him and my sources. You had a chance to use talk page but you just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page.Ferakp (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it wasn't a behavioral problem, the POV conflict would be soon resolved as the involved editors would rationally discuss the issue and come to a NPOV compromise. ;-) But anyway, my point was that this is not ONE editor who is to blame here. But both sides are behaving wrongly. It may very well be that Ferakp is a worse offender, I'm not going to spend time making a statistical analysis of it. No matter who starts the fight, breaking Wikipedia policy is the incorrect response. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what could make me a worse offender, is it that I proved that all accusations are not true and I am absolutely right, or that I neutralized articles using reliable and newest sources. You should tell those editors that they should focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles 24/7. I am tired to clean Kurdish articles from their fictitious references (I showed 4 of them) and claims. Ferakp (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles" - could not have a statement that shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. What would be "my articles" now, Ferakp? --GGT (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You understood it well, I said instead of blackwashing Kurdish articles, focus on what you know. Blackwashing Kurdish articles is not funny.Ferakp (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither is whitewashing, and this problem isn't going to go away unless we agree to keep to WP:NPOV and discuss the disagreements rationally and calmly. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Section break for convenience and an appeal before this gets to a topic ban

    Having read the above and looked at the above, I'm inclined to agree there are issues with regard to Ferakp with regard to how to interpret sourcing in a non-biased manner, tendentiousness and lack of acceptance of consensus, and a general battleground mentality. Ferakp, you need to understand that on this project we overwhelmingly rely on WP:Secondary sources in most circumstances; you don't get to just delete or alter content supported by those sources because they "got it wrong" just because the facts and positions in those sources does not jive with your preferred interpretation of reality and/or primary sources. More important than that, even if you're policy interpretations were correct, you still wouldn't be getting anywhere without adjusting your attitude towards the consensus-based model of this project or the principle of showing special care in editorial areas where you may not have a neutral point of view. To be clear, there are places where I feel your edits show potential to add beneficial nuance to these issues, but there are also others where it is clear you operating under the bias of wanting to see (and to present) an interpretation of facts in a light which is most beneficial to the Kurdish people.

    I have sympathy for how the historical context here affects views, and indeed I appreciate the hardships various Kurdish populations have endured themselves, but you have to understand that you are not going to accomplish anything on this project by working against the WP:WEIGHT of sourcing, except to waste a good deal of your own energy, and that of other editors; indeed, you risk pushing the perspectives of the articles in question in the opposite direction you intend as other editors strive to counterblance you, some of whom could possibly become more entrenched in their views as a product of dealing with your own intransigence. Further, at this point, you are running the risk of being seen as so problematic in this topic area that you must be removed from it, after which your influence on these topics will be reduced to just that resistance to your views that you engendered in other contributors. Please consider taking a break from the articles in question for a little while, then going back with an effort to see if you can hammer out reasonable compromise wording with regard to some of the points you object to. Snow let's rap 22:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity I've been looking at some of the supposedly offending diffs provided against Ferakp, in particular those provided by GGT. Based on them alone, I find little to fault with Ferakp. The edits have mostly actually improved the articles. The material deleted has often been cherrypicked from sources for effect, or had been expressed as if there was absolutely no doubt as to accuracy (where in reality the unbiased nature of many of the sources could be questioned). Other deleted material was definitely off-topic. I don't know if Ferakp has been using talk pages to explain these edits - if not, they might on the surface appear to be brisk and be engaged in whitewashing, but actually they are not. And I come from this from the standpoint of thinking that there is far too much pro-Kurdish propaganda and whitewashing in Kurd/Kurdistan related articles and they have often been let off the hook regarding accuracy because of a general desire to be "nice" to Kurds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For example GGT cited this [135] - but the edit is correct, if you are "born into" it refers to the language your parents spoke at the time you were born, not what you and your peers currently speak in everyday life. I feel this is also correct [136] - the deleted claim was quite extraordinary in the figure given, the cited source is of unknown quality and the page cited seems to not exist. Extraordinary claims will require something better than this. The only issue is with the swiftness of the deletion - perhaps it should have been tagged first. CTC claims this content addition is unsourced [137], but it is sourced! And the content addition is completely justified - if an organization is criticized it is appropriate for a response by that organization to the criticism to be presented alongside the original accusation. This [138] which GGT also objected to, I see as a correct but badly executed attempt to counter editorializing and source distortion. The source does not mention "Kurdish-language schools", it mentions private schools that ran classes that taught the Kurdish language. There are no "Kurdish-language schools" in Turkey, they are illegal - as the source says, classes (except classes that are teaching Kurdish) have to be taught in Turkish. This [139] is also correct. The deleted "where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect" is simply cherrypicked from the source for effect: its wording and context suggests that most of the FGM in Iran is done by Kurds. However, the source says nothing like that, and also says "The prevalence of FGM in Kurdistan is patchy and varies sharply from one region to another". The deletion of the "A 2011 Kurdish law criminalized..." content is hard to explain and accept though. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, two of the articles being mentioned here I see as possible pov forks: Kurdification and Human rights in Rojava. There seems not enough material to justify Human rights in Rojava, and it seems to exist only to host negative criticism, excluding the ample amount of sources that say the rights and liberties of the populations in Rojava are far greater than in neighbouring areas and have been highly praised. Created by Ferakp, I can see why it could give the impression, as has been suggested, that it exists only to remove this negative criticism from another article? The term "Kurdification" is questionable since it originated in Turkish post-Iraq-invasion propaganda as a response to the far more historically well founded and factual term "Turkification", which Turkey had (and still is) been accused of inflicting on Kurds in Turkey. I do not see much legitimate academic use of the phrase Kurdification and all the sources cited in the article need checking to see if they do use that phrase. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to (Needs Admin Review)

    John Carter (talk · contribs) recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by posting on my talk page while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[140][141][142][143] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Just thought I'd tag this on, as recent data seems not to have been fully convincing for some users. I noticed a while ago that John Carter almost never edits in the mainspace unless the article's title is "Bibliography of encyclopedias". In the last year he has made 23 edits to articles other than that, and of these 23, five of them were direct reverts of me, on an article he had never shown any interest in before. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? HighInBC 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and User:Sturmgewehr88 between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under an IBAN with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably these two concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.
    Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([144]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: If it's peripheral you should have chosen your words more careful. In your original comments here, you implied that JC had done it intentionally. As I said above you said "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" which implies there was a delibrate obfuscation on the part of JC. Open and shut case doesn't excuse you making accusations with insufficient evidence and it was fair of me to point out you had done so. A simple example which doesn't make such accusations would be
    "recently posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he did so while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[145][146][147][148] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page is inappropriate?"
    You can easily come up with many different examples of wording which conveys the point. In other words I agree it's a red herring, as there's no reason why you can't mention the evidence, without accusing JC of intentionally logging out to post out your talk page when you have sufficient evidence to make such an accusations and where what evidence that does exist suggests it probably wasn't a delibrate action. But it's a red herring which you caused by your actions here at ANI.
    Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I know it was a poor choice of words, and I apologize. My only defense is that it was less a deliberate attempt to lead the reader than a Freudian slip ー I legitimately believed that evading detection was John Carter's intention, as indicated by my comments on my own talk page. I initially drafted the above OP comment with a lengthy discussion of why I think this, but then realized my case was still fairly weak, and would be pretty pointless to boot (an OB like John Carter isn't going to be blocked for one small instance of sockpuppetry). When I removed this discussion I guess I wasn't as thorough as I should have been. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose IBAN I am not seeing anything mean spirited here. The links you give show John either talking about articles or explaining how Wikipedia works. You "banning him" from your talk page seems to be in response to reasonable comments. If we are to CBAN based on two people being in the same places then we need a lot more evidence than has been presented. HighInBC 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:KEEPOFF is relevant here (though sadly underdeveloped even as far as essays go). Telling someone to keep off your user talk page is rarely helpful, and when done unreasonably, can lead to non-enforcement of that "ban". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. If you don't have a good reason to tell someone to go away then it is hardly harassment if they say something to you later. Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order. In both of those links where you tell John to go away the comments being made are measured and reasonable. HighInBC 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighInBC: He showed up at an ANI thread I started about his friend and deliberately misrepresented the dispute by pretending it was already under discussion on DRN. He engaged in off-wiki contact with ... someone who apparently really doesn't like me and then when I asked if it was the same site-banned user who had been posting my personal information all over the internet (and was at that time still actively engaged in emailing anyone who got in a dispute with me on Wikipedia, from a sock account -- email me if you want the details) he repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying as "of course someone without a publicly disclosed email must be engaged in sockpuppetry" (???) even though I explained my concern to him over and over again. He suddenly showed up on an article I was in the middle of rewriting and started trolling the hell out of me over one word in the lead, despite multiple users telling him to cut it out, and then when he didn't get his way on the talk page he opened an ANI thread (again: you say he was discussing article content, but ANI is not the place for that). Half the time I cannot make head or tail about what his beef is with me, and the only reason I can think of is that he is deliberately being antagonistic. When I told him to stay off my talk page he didn't until told more firmly to stay off, and then he came back again later, while logged out, and posted an inane non-sequitur apparently just to get another rise out of me (seriously -- look at what User:Curly Turkey and I were discussing, and then try to figure out what JC's contribution to the discussion was; if you can, then you understand the content of my talk page better than I do). And he has been stalking my edits to boot! What more evidence do you need? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't convinced when Hijiri first started telling me that JC was hounding him, but after a couple of months of seeing him showing up everywhere—and often making bizarre comments like the one pointed out here—I'm convinced. I have no idea what a solution is, but I'm positive that he didn't show up at Hijiri's talk page to honestly be helpful—he obviously dislikes Hijirii too much. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. More dispute resolution could be a good idea, perhaps with a mediator or request for comment format. Also, essentially agree with analysis by HighInBC, at DIFF, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: Dispute resolution about what? John Carter and I do not edit in the same areas, and even in those topics areas where there is a very slight overlap (I edit articles on biblical, Jewish and Christian topics, and JC very occasionally posts on these talk pages) the problem is not that we have a disagreement on content. John Carter followed me around for most of 2015 and reverted a bunch of my edits and caused massive ruckuses on talk pages and here on ANI, and I asked that he stay off of my talk page. He has refused to do so, while hypocritically imposing such a "stay away" restriction on me.[149][150][151][152][153] How on earth would "dispute resolution" solve an issue where there is no dispute other than a non-productive editor hounding a productive one? Further, if both John Carter and I want an IBAN (I think JC's last comment on the issue was I might also request an i-ban of him with me, but he might have said the same thing more recently), why should one not be put in place? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking perhaps informally seeking out someone from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, but hopefully the comment from Drmies, below, will help clear things up and prevent problems in the future. — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "You have no choice but to obey"? Such an authoritarian command has to be based on the editor being ordered to obey Wikipedia policy or standards, not on what an individual says, even if the individual is an administrator. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that backs up your command to obey. In absence of policy, or an interaction ban, or some other preexisting sanction, I do not think an administrator can make a "do this because I say so, or else" threat. While it might have been socially impolite for John Carter to have made the user page post (if he did it), the post itself had a legitimate purpose and was not offensive or harassing under the Wikipedia definitions of offense or harassment. I accept Hijiri 88 feels the post to be harassing (which should be reason enough for John Carter not to repeat it), but I think harassment as a sanctionable offense should not be based on an individual editor's standard of offense or hurt feelings, but on accepted group standards expressed through Wikipedia policy. Without some sort of harassment within the post's content, or an intent to harass through the act of posting, policy does not exist that allows an editor ignoring a request not to post on a user page to be blocked for not following that request not to post. Or as HighinBC put it "Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Softlavender and Drmies. People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so. I'm hoping HighInBC and MSGJ are taking note of this. - theWOLFchild 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have something to say to me you are welcome to do so at my talk page. HighInBC 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will do. - theWOLFchild 16:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so" (a statement which I agree with) is very different from saying "People must stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so". The latter is what Softlavender and Drmies appear to be saying, and I think it is not a position supported by Wikipedia policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I-Ban, however... An I Ban seems like unnecessary overkill,. That said a request by an editor not to post on their talk page has always been treated as something close to posting a "No Trespassing" sign with your name on it. In all but the rarest of circumstances such a request should be scrupulously respected. Failing to do so absent a very compelling reason has generally been treated as a form of WP:HARASSMENT. It may not be their private property but the community has long recognized the right of editors to some degree of control over their own user and talk pages. If John has been posting on the OP's talk page after being asked not to, he needs to stop. Period. An apology, on this page, not the talk page, would not be out of order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am striking my opposition to an I Ban. Based on more recent comments from both parties I now believe it appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I should specify that the reason John Carter is not supposed to post on my talk page is that he and two or three other users put me through a lot of crap last year, to the point where I started to hate logging in and seeing that I had new messages, because I was worried about what new trickery they were up to. I'm largely over that "complex" by now, but it was still very disturbing to log on one morning last week and find that not only was John Carter back editing (and therefore potentially back to inflict more nonsense on me) but had posted on my talk page while logged out. John Carter knows the crap he put me through, and knows I don't like interacting with him, and he has been harassing me at this point for over a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is relevant. The only issue here is that it is alleged that he has posted on your talk page after you asked him not to. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This seems to me an attempt at continuing the irrational and frankly paranoid behavior that caused Hijiri to be sanctioned in the first place. I would also point out that there was no visible attempt on his part to notify me of this discussion on my user talk page, which is, actually, required, even though I have had to twice request him before to stay off my user talk page, and he seems to continue to ignore those requests. (Note: Actually, that is wrong. He did give such a notice, but started the post with a gratuitous and unnecessary request, which I believe could it itself not unreasonably be seen as being a continuation of his apparent absolute refusal to abide by my already repeated request to stay off my user talk page. Also, I suppose, maybe that requirement does not apply to people as exalted as Hijiri. I believe the issue here is the ongoing pattern of what I consider frankly insane conduct on the part of Hijiri, and I believe that it might not be unreasonable to request some sort of sanctions against him for this conduct on his part. I commented on two discussions at the talk page of the Bible project, because I watch that page and the WP:X noticeboard, where I saw the discussion listed. Of late, I have been spending most of my time gathering material for pages for Category:WikiProject prospectuses and Category:WikiProject libraries, and it is easier to do that without distractions. But I have reason to believe that the ongoing irrational behavior of the original poster here could be seen as being very reasonably grounds for further administrative action against him, particularly considering his refusal to adhere to my repeated request to stay off my own user talk page and the grossly inflammatory and unnecessary nature of the comment he added to the ANI notice despite having been told twice already to stay off my user talk page. Also, if anyone is interested, I would be willing to forward to them an e-mail I received from Hijiri, after my repeated requests to him to stay off my userpage, whose sole purpose seems to have been to tell me he wouldn't be stupid enough to do something. Evidently, sending such an e-mail to get around my request to no longer receive comments from him is something he doesn't consider so stupid. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of self-contradiction, baseless insults, and questionable "facts" in the above long comment (which I finally mustered the courage to read from start to finish), but I'm going to limit myself to replying to the last part. I didn't email John Carter "to get around [his] request to no longer receive comments from [me]", as I had, frankly, forgotten about that request (I have, nonetheless, not posted anything on his talk page except what was required in some six months). This will be backed up by the content of the email (I specifically said I didn't want my dispute with him to clutter up any more of an ANI thread about Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito; I wanted to avoid posting here, not on John Carter's talk page).o there is no misunderstanding, I will publish the content of the email below. There is nothing in it embarrassing to me, but publishing it here will clearly prove John Carter's above claim wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    E-mail from Hijiri88 to John Carter, 2015/10/22, Thu 11:05; the edits to which I refer are here

    John Carter, I'm emailing you because I don't want this discussion to clutter up the Wikipedia namespace or anywhere else more than it has to. I don't expect you to respond to this email, nor do I particular desire such.

    Your repeatedly asserting that I was the collapser at ANI is disruptive. The collapser was very clearly NOT me, but Curly Turkey, who has nothing whatsoever to do with ArbCom and (unlike CurtisNaito) doesn't even want to be involved. For one thing, the collapse title referred to my initial response which barely mentioned ArbCom as "acrimonious bickering" over and unrelated ArbCom case -- something that clearly I would never use to describe my own post.

    You accusing me of "assuming bad faith" by merely stating the facts, while at the same time actively assumed bad faith even though you must have known better (you claimed you had reverted the collapsing several times, so you must have known who you were reverting) is deeply hypocritical and very disruptive.

    I'm going to forward this email to CurtisNaito and Yunshui (who I know is on a wikibreak but he's an Arbitrator with whom I have had prior dealings, both positive and negative, and believe to be a fair neutral observer).

    Cheers!

    Hijiri88

    At the risk of hurting my own mental health (again), I'm not going to respond to or even read most of what I guess is another string of lies and deception in the above long comment, but in his edit summary he insinuated that I didn't notify him of this discussion, an obvious lie. I'm done putting up with your bullshit, John Carter. Stay the hell off my talk page, stop following my edits, and stop talking shit about me all over the project (and via email). Just stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, to my eyes, the single source of bullshit here is you. First, despite your evincing what some might see as your opinions to the contrary, you are not in divine, absolute control of everything. You cannot demand that everyone do exactly what you say, while at the same time acting in the irrational and counterproductive way you so regularly do, which can also be seen by your similar refusal to address the concerns of myself and another in the ArbCom case which led to your current sanctions. Refusing to deal with reality does not make it go away. I am more than willing to see the end of your own paranoic ranting myself, and have been since the first time I told you to stay off my user talk page. Under the circumstances, I think the most reasonable thing to be done here would be for you to display the capacity to engage in reasonable conduct yourself, something which I think has been rather visibly lacking from you for some time. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go folks, two characteristic examples of the language of John Carter. Notice first that he missed the notification of this discussion on his talk page and decries Hijiri for it. He also bashes Hijiri's characher numerous times (irrational, paranoid, insane, etc) and flat-out lies about Hijiri's past editing and sanctions to make him out to be a villain (can he not tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese after being so deeply involved in that dispute?). He acts like this is all about him being a victim, never recognizing that this is about him posting on Hijiri's talk page. He demands numerous times that Hijiri must stay off of his talk page, but later accuses Hijiri of thinking he is God for demanding the same! And of course he finishes with a holier-than-thou sermon on conduct. I just wonder if anyone else took the time to read all of his posts and notice the same things that show up in pretty much all of his posts. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it surprises nobody that
    @John Carter: I recognize the tone of the above six words as being yours. Could you please finish, sign, or remove it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I Ban for both parties and propose 30 day block for Hijiri88 for grossly uncivil commentary on this forum and using it as platform for attacking another editor in a manner that is completely out of bounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Yes, I said "bullshit". This may have been a bad call. I apologize for any offense my use of foul language caused. This was not my intention. John Carter just has a habit of bringing out the worst in me (indeed, he seems to enjoy doing so on a semi-regular basis), which is why I told you of all the nonsense he put me through last year. I should have said "obvious and demonstrable lies". But John Carter said the same about what I said, including the word "bullshit" (immediately above). The question is whose accusations are demonstrable. I have provided evidence that John Carter has made up stuff about me (I'll search for the diff where I specifically pointed out to him before he posted below that he and I interacted on the Historicity of Jesus talk page back in 2014, if you need it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak support I-ban and sanctions as per the above, although I have questions about how it might deal with questions of effectively banning individuals from discussions. Specifically, Hijiri has only since his topic ban from Chinese topics shown any substantive interest in Christianity, and honestly I can't rule out the possibility that his more or less newfound interest in that topic might not be a form of "reprisal" on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I supposed to be civil when John Carter keeps lying about me like this? I have been editing Christian topics for years and I have never been topic-banned from Chinese topics! The above looks like a not-so-subtle way to try to get me sanctioned for violating a topic ban to which I was never subject, as I have started editing much more in a certain topic (Chinese culture) since my recent topic ban. John Carter has been making my Wikipedia life miserable for a year, and now I am being threatened with a block simply for reporting on it and responding in a (pretty reasonable, given the circumstances) fashion to his continued harassment. If someone can demonstrate that John Carter has not been lying about me and harassing me for the last year, including in this very thread, please do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to conduct yourself with a minimal level of decorum then you might want to consider finding another project to work on. Because the kind of invective you have been throwing around here is not acceptable and if you persist in this behavior it is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "bullshit". John Carter also said "bullshit". John Carter told a long string of lies about me, with the intention of bringing sanctions down on me. He has not provided any evidence of his accusations, and I cannot be expected to let them stand. I have already apologized for my use of foul language. But the harassment and pathological lying also need to be dealt with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is becoming increasingly clear that you just don't get it, and I am starting to doubt if that is correctable. Civility is not limited to the use of gutter language. I stand by my recommendations above and am going to move on unless something actually new comes up on this thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it to do with me accusing John Carter of lying? I provided evidence. Is it to do with my "thanking" you for an edit that appeared to be dismissive of me? I didn't take it that way -- you made a reasonable point, and I didn't see the point of continuing discussion further beyond indicating that I appreciated what you said. Is it to do with my going on and on about the mental trauma John Carter put me through? You are supposed to assume I am telling the truth, and if you want more evidence, I can provide it to you (preferably by email, for the reasons outlined below). Is it because of something else I said? If so I will try to work on it, but simply saying I am uncivil and linking to a policy page I have probably read a dozen times over over the years is not helpful. I know I have had a lapse in civility. It is because John Carter has put me through a tremendous amount of ... painful experiences, just remembering it makes me very upset, and has already caused me to lose several hours of sleep over the past week (fortunately I'm a school teacher in Japan and am on holiday at the moment). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c) And the record of the Arbitration case from last year at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 and related pages rather clearly demonstrates that throwing invective, possibly virtually any time anyone questions him, seems to be perhaps one of Hijiri's more persistent habits. And the primary b.s I see being thrown is still from Hijiri, and his as yet completely unsupported accusations about me. I am more than willing to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests it, other than Hijiri of course, for verification. Also, as per the evidence page I linked to above, Hijiri himself has a rather well documented history of making life miserable for others, including accusations of sock-puppetry from the beginning of editing, as per TH1980's evidence on that page. I believe that much of this is due to his repeated insistence that someone who has contacted me regarding his conduct is a sockpuppet of someone he had previous trouble with. For what it is worth, I myself went through every step I could to determine independently the identity of that person, and find that the likelihood of his being the same person as Hijiri's earlier stalker is pretty much nonexistent. I also have some reason to believe that the ArbCom itself was aware of the identity of the person I had been in e-mail contact with at the time of the arbitration, and there is nothing in the results of the arbitration to indicate that they considered Hijiri's allegations of sockpuppetry by his former stalker worthy of direct consideration. And, if someone wants to talk about unsubstantiated allegations, the worst ones in this matter are Hijiri's repeated insistence that, apparently, only that former stalker could ever disagree with him. A position which, I believe, is ridiculous on the face of it. Regarding use of "gutter language," I think even a former arb somewhere has said on a userspace page that in at least some rather extreme cases it is appropriate to call something "bullshit," or "ridiculous," or similar, and I personally believe that discussion of Hijiri's conduct and apparent deeply-held beliefs may well be one of them. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Yes, civility is more than just the use of "gutter language"; does calling someone "insane" breech civility? Or any of the character-bashing John Carter has continuously done since his first post? Or that inflammatory lie that Hijiri never editied Christian articles before and got TBANned from Chinese topics? That last one especially, considering the deep involvement he had with Hijiri, calls either his competency or integrity into question. He should share any sanction placed on Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I would think that in this particular case, when I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE, i personally would not think so. In this case, it is the most accurate, if blunt, description of the individual in discussion possible. And it will be noted in the numerous previous discussions regarding Hijiri that roughly synonymous words have rather often been used to describe Hijiri. I guess it should also be noticed that Sturmgewehr88, whom others have in the past accused of engaging in almost knee-jerk defense of Hijiri on a regular basis in the past, keeps up one of his habits, of himself making accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Also, I think it would be interesting to anyone involved to see him comment, I forget where, in the ArbCom case to the effect that he couldn't find anything which indicates people are responsible for their own actions here. Such a comment might be very interesting to note in this instance. Also noting the obvious and rather transparent inflammatory lie made by SG above, in which he grossly misrepresents my statement to indicate that I said Hijiri has never edited in the field before. I challenge him to, before engaging in further hysterical accusations, to perhaps read the comments of others and not misrepresent them. I said he has shown litle interest in the field, not that he never edited it before. In my history with you, SG, I have to say that I have yet to see you demonstrate much if any capacity for engaging in useful discussion youself, and that you have, as per an e-mail you sent me which I forwarded to ArbCom in the case mentioned above, had to seek help from Hijiri before starting an ANI in his defense. I also note that SG has had to be told to stay off my user talk page twice as well, apparently, like Hijiri, not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    making accusations without any evidence whatsoever John Carter, just drop it already. Ample evidence has been provided that I edited Christianity- and Bible-related topics long before my recent topic ban, and even interacted with you on such pages, and that my recent topic ban is on Japanese, not Chinese topics. Maybe you just forgot about all of this, but your continuing to claim that you were not forgetful but in fact correct in your accusations indicates that you are acting in bad faith. Why did you choose to randomly replace "Japanese" with "Chinese"? Why specifically "Chinese"? Unlike Christianity/Bible articles, I actually hadn't been editing China-related articles with any frequency before December. Were you following my recent edits and planning to get me blocked for violating an imaginary topic ban on Chinese topics? Did you really think the blocking admin wouldn't review what my topic ban actually says before blocking me? And did you really think you could get away with this blatant lying?
    And could someone please explain to me why I am the one being threatened with a CIVIL block when John Carter says things like I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE and insulting the intelligence of other users (not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share)
    Also, I'm not going to read much into it, but John Carter is aware that false accusations of neo-Nazism have been made against myself and Sturmgewehr88 because of our username. John Carter is perhaps not aware that other users have been blocked for two months for calling me a Nazi. I was logged out at the time, though -- I was not editing logged in because of a chilling email I received from another user who has also since been indefinitely blocked by Drmies. I don't see what benefit JC sees in bringing up our usernames yet again. (Also, I wanted to point out yet another incidence of me editing Bible-related articles in May 2014. Thing is, I think John Carter and I actually agree on most articles related to Christianity, so I really don't understand why he refuses to cooperate with me, and instead insists on denying that I ever edited articles related to Christianity, when he knows that's an argument he can't possibly win. Also, note that in the thread linked, I indicate that I am intimately aware with the contents of Christine Hayes' 20-hour lecture series on the Old Testament. I sure went to a lot of effort to cover up the fact that I'm not really interested in Christianity/Judaism/Bible-related topics, what with watching an re-watching YaleCourses video series over a year before my conflict with John Carter even started. Apparently I have magical foresight and am so obsessed with wikistalking John Carter that I sunk hundreds of hours into intense research of the topics John Carter is interested in and I am only pretending to be interested in.)
    Also, can I add that calling WikiProject Bible -- and particular discussion of the Hebrew Bible -- a "Christian" topic is Christocentric and offensive to Jews? I know a lot of Christians (and non-Christians who live in Christian countries) tend to forget that that the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Psalms, is a Jewish and not a Christian text, so this is probably a good faith mistake, but I would ask John Carter to kindly stop using this language.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others, something that has been repeatedly noted as being almost standard operating procedure from him. I do not remember having ever said you never edited articles relating to Christianity, although that now seems to be two people who are making that accusation. I remember having said you didn't edit them, and, honestly, your record of editing history seems to indicate you don't edit them frequently, perhaps less frequently than some other topics. Granted, it is always hard to respond to someone who states in their own responses that they haven't actually necessarily bothered to read the comments to which they are responding and/or will not address the matters those comments raise. And, for what it is worth, personally, at least in the context of this site, I don't particularly give a damn about my own opinions regarding Christianity, although I find it interesting that you appear to be indicating that such is my motivating purpose in editing the topic. My interest is in getting the material as encyclopedic as possible, although I do note the rather apparent attempt to impugn my motivations in your statement. Regarding the completely irrelevant and off-topic comment about indicating that I consider the Bible "Christocentric", well, I noticed that discussion because it was and I think still is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, which I think I mentioned. Jumping to such unfounded allegations as that one is indicative to me of perhaps some people attempting to raise completely irrelevant and unfounded aspersions and insinuations for no readily identifiable purpose. I find it remarkable that once again Hijiri is jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others, a rather repeated habit of his. And, regarding my obvious and apparent mistake in the Japanese/Chinese statement above, I made a mistake there, based on bad memory. Despite Hijiri88's apparent belief to the contrary, other people do at times make mistakes, and cross-examination of others or seeking to find "hidden motives" to determine some conjectural "deeper motivation" where there isn't necessarily any such motivation is a rather frequently noted characteristic of the paranoid. However, my apologies in making an honest mistake. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others Can you give a specific example? Anyway, you said Sturmgewehr88 made accusations without evidence, and I provided evidence backing up everything Sturmgewehr88 said. The only way you could not have noticed this is if you didn't read Sturmgewehr88's remark before accusing him of "making accusations without any evidence whatsoever". Please actually provide some evidence of the endless string of accusations you are making against me. I have gone above and beyond what should be expected of me, given the restrictions that are already placed on me giving detailed descriptions of our prior interactions. Your first comment in this (former) sub-section consisted of a single massive lie, and both Sturmgewehr88 and I called you out on it. You have been dodging the question by claiming it was a "mistake" to confuse "Japan" for "China", but you still have not addressed the elephant in the room -- that you accused me of "following you" to "Christianity articles", even though I have been more active than you in contributing to those articles for years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course you provided evidence. As I think can be seen from the e-mail received by me which he forwarded to me, which I myself forwarded to ArbCom, just like in that exchange, you provided the evidence for him to post. This seems to me to very, very seriously raise questions whether he acts on his own particularly often, or whether he simply plays the role of a sort of meatpuppet for you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, John Carter, I was well aware of this discussion well before you were, and had you not posted in the manner that you did, I may well have not posted here at all. I already know that no matter what anyone says or does, you'll continue to character-bash Hijiri and I (and anyone else you don't like for that matter), you'll continue to be a blatant hypocrite (complaining about WP:TLDR in a TLDR post, seriously?), and you'll continue to, in the popular term of the day, spout bullshit. As in 99% of the ANI threads involving John Carter, this one will become a monstrous wall of text that leads to nowhere but the archives. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the evidence is I think rather clear that dedfending Hijiri88 is one of your primary purposes in Wikipedia. I am frankly amazed by your comment above that you seem to think it surprising that someone respond to an ANI thread against them. I once again note, although a bit more explicitly this time, that, at least so far as I can see, you have rarely if ever demonstrated any particular grasp of policies and guidelines, no more than Hijiri88 anyway, and that your comment above about how I am engaging in character-bashing in your eyes, which I personally think as the person making the comments in question are more evaluation of the conduct of that editor and the dubious rationality of many of his actions, that your own comment above is to my eyes a much clearer attempt at character-bashing. And, once again, I note how both you and he had to be told to stay off my own user talk page twice by me, which can be seen by the archives of my talk page and your own, and that this could raise some questions regarding basic competency on the part of both of you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I emailed you, as I am not at liberty to respond to the above on-wiki, but I will say that one needs to examine the context -- at least one of those violations was because of frustration that the other party had violated the IBAN by reverting my edits, and I was not able to get any traction by reporting on ANI because John Carter showed up and derailed the discussion multiple times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately am unable to access emails atm. It seems rather bollocks not to be able to use an ANI as neutral ground- in this case, to be able to respond to my comment! Which may, or may not, be unfounded. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion of a potential IBAN between me and John Carter. You referred to one or two prior IBANs, one of which is still in effect. I can tell you that (despite what John Carter said in 2015) Tristan noir was the only one who violated my IBAN with him back in 2013, and Drmies apologized fairly quickly for falling for Tristan noir's fabricated "incident" in which I supposedly violated it. I emailed you the details of some of my later blocks related to the other (still in effect) IBAN, at least one of which was fairly similar. I am not allowed discuss the other party or their actions on-wiki, and therefore am not able to give you the details. Suffice to say the other party reverted my edits, I reported on AN, John Carter derailed the discussion, and (much later, after the same thing happened) I reverted back in frustration. There was a lot more to it, though. Please read my email if you get a chance. If we were discussing the IBAN in question, I could go into detail (but I don't want to -- again, just remembering all the stuff John Carter and his amazing friends put me through causes me to lose sleep). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IBAN as John Carter clearly has no intention of stopping following Hijiri around. Oppose block for being utterly petty and serving no conceivable purpose—shame on the proposer for proposing something so pointlessly disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the above comment more than a little ridiculous myself, as it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC on the talk page of a WikiProject I regularly consult and taking part in an ANI discussion about me is in some way following Hijiri88 around. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Regularly consult" meaning that the last time you posted there was two years ago? Seriously? Further, how do your explain your continued activity on my talk page, and you do you explain your mysterious Freudian slip? In the half-dozen ANI threads you started on me requesting that I be TBANned from "Japanese culture", and in the ArbCom case where you appear to have requested the same (most of what you wrote was apparently in the form of emails to the committee, so I can't be sure), you don't seem to have ever even once accidentally written it as "Chinese culture", but now a few days after my writing an article on a Chinese topic and my commenting on WikiProject China about a month ago, you suddenly make this "mistake"? You were clearly following my edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • it seems to be implying that taking part in an RfC—it implies no such thing—I don't even know what RfC you're talking about. I'm talking about you following Hijiri around and making a nuisance of yourself. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support IBAN and Oppose block, both apply to both editors, two-way IBAN. It is most unfortunate, to be sure, but John Carter (talk · contribs) himself commented in support of the IBAN, and after my prior initial comment, unfortunately, the tone of the rhetoric appears to only have significantly degraded, on both sides of the aisle. — Cirt (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the nature of comments, I once again urge all involved to see the history of comments by Hijiri as presented in the Arb case, which indicates to me that degraded discussion is the norm in any discussion in which Hijiri88 feels challenged. My one reservation about an i-ban is that there does seem to be some reason to think Hijiri88 might be capable of making some useful contributions in the topic of Christianity and the Bible, particularly of the early Christian era and what is sometimes called the intertestamental period. He is currently banned from his most favored topic area, as per the ArbCom ruling. Honestly, if he could get around the paranoic ideation he rather regularly seems to indulge in, he could I think be a reasonable contributor in the Biblical/Christian/Jewish field, and I wouldn't want to see that ended. At the same time, however, the fairly long history of paranoic ideation on his part does raise concerns in my eyes that there may be no reason to think that such thinking will change, and, possibly by extension, that his own habit of stalking others, including me and the currently inactive Catflap08, as can be found supported in the ArbCom case, raises questions about whether that stalking behavior on his part will continue, along with his fairly regularly demonstrated extremely emotional responses. There is still a huge amount of missing and underdeveloped material in that field, and I would welcome seeing it developed, but I have very serious questions whether the problematic conduct he has rather regularly displayed in regards to many people will be a driving force in his own contributions in that area. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, we actually have a very handy control. Before taking John Carter's word for it (that my rhetoric is always degraded because I had a few slips during a very heated ArbCom case initiated by John Carter), please examine my repeated engagement in these three other currently-open ANI threads, as well as my engagement in this thread before John Carter showed up and started attacking me, and the other detachable comments I have made in several more ANI threads. In none of them, even in this thread before last night, did anyone call me out on my "degraded discussion"; in fact I received several "thank"s for my comments (User:HighInBC, despite being very skeptical of me earlier on in this thread, just last night thanked me for this general commentary on the nature of AGF and NLT). John Carter brings out the worst in me, because that is what John Carter is trying to do. If I am able to comport myself in a polite, civil, respectable manner in every situation where John Carter isn't trying to bait me, then how could blocking me and not John Carter possibly be a solution? John Carter was the one who degraded the rhetoric in this discussion, not me. This is just one more reason why an IBAN is needed, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support i-ban, no comment on block. Since it seems both editors agree to the iban and the back and forth between them in this pages suggests it's needed, I think it's a slam dunk. I don't think the ability of editors to follow the iban should concern us too much. The only general alternative is some sort of ban. I don't think a topic ban would help between the editors so the other option is a community ban. But I think it's better to give any editors rope, as annoying as it may be to have to deal with iban violation discussions at ANI i.e. hope the iban works and if it doesn't block them as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Could a non-ninvolved Admim review and close this thread? I think very little of substance is being added at this point, and what we have is a long shouting match between two editors who appear to be in agreement on only one thing. They need to be separated by an I Ban. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hijiri, when you make a claim on ANI and request an IBan or other sanction, you need in your OP to make your evidence, claim, and diffs of longterm abuse airtight so that the case is open-and-shut. You really failed to do that, and consequently your case is very weak and led only to massive he-said-she-said squabbling on this thread between you, John Carter, and fellow supporters of either of you. There's no use trying to retroactively make your case three or more days after you filed it -- it's too late then and only adds to the muddle. Now it's just a big mess and no one really has the time or inclination to get to the bottom of it -- at this point people are merely judging who has the worst mouth and who has been most insulting or bad-mannered on this thread. If I were an admin I'd just close this thread as a mistrial, and say please everyone can we please play like adults, and try to avoid people that we are getting overly entangled with. I don't think anybody at all on this thread has made a case for anything, and the fault is mainly because your OP was little more than a barely substantiated whine. Can we please all just drop this and find something on Wikipedia to be improved? Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A week ago I would have agreed with your last sentence. I wanted John Carter told off for not respecting my wishes that he stay off my talk page. I didn't provide extensive evidence of long-term harassment was that (apart from my IBAN with another user preventing me from providing/discussing most of the evidence on ANI!) that I sincerely expected that if I expressed my willingness to submit to the mutual IBAN that John Carter proposed several times, John Carter would show up, apologize for posting on my talk page, agree to a mutual IBAN, and that would be that. I did not expect him to wait several days before showing up and posting a bunch of very long comments about what a horrible person I am. If you want a complete summary of John Carter's harassment of me over the last year, with diffs, I will try to put one together and email it to you later this week. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works, Hijiri. If you don't make your case in your OP, you generally have very little chance of getting what you requested, and an overwhelming chance of the thread turning into a free-for-all, as this has. Time to call it a day. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this thread is supposed to be wrapping up, so I don't want to star a fight, but twhen you say "that's not how it works", it seems to be based more on your personal opinion than on any PAG. Uncontroversial requests, such as a mutual IBAN that has already been agreed to by both parties, generally do not require a tremendous amount of evidence up front. Everyone here except you, including both John Carter and myself, seems to support the IBAN, so can't we just give it a rest and, as you say, find something on Wikipedia to be improved? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Ad Orientem and Sturmgewehr88. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I once again notice what I believe is the oft-repeated and I believe very possibly pathological behavior of Hijiri88 in trying to divert attention from possible errors on his own part and blaming others for them. This seems in a pattern with his previous behavior, in which he seemed to blame virtually every disagreement he had with anyone on the intervention of his stalker of years ago. He seems to have developed a tendency to I believe demonstrably erroneously believe because, in his eyes, that stalking individual is violating policies and guidelines, and is according to his thinking the sole motivating factor in virtually any disagreement he has here, he is free to violate those policies and guidelines as well. That is not and never has been acceptable here. Continuing in similar behavior, even if the original reason is unfounded, isn't either. I would also, frankly, include in a possible I-ban here me, Hijiri88 and Sturmgewehr88 and possibly others, because I believe that there is an easily demonstrated history of possible collusion on the part of those last two editors in particular, and possibly others, perhaps similar to that in the WP:EEML. Lastly, I find it laughable that someone who sent me an e-mail saying he had to contact me somehow, despite having been twice told in no uncertain terms to stay of my user talk page, to indicate he wasn't as stupid as he thought I indicated in a comment, not realizing such behavior is no better than violating the request to stay off the user talk page, and, frankly, far from indicating that person isn't stupid. I believe such behavior, and that very very weak grasp of policies and guidelines, and/or a possible belief that policies and guidelines are less important than him defending himself at any and all costs, including violations, indicates someone whose grasp of conduct guidelines is at best very weak and very very possible indicative of the possible incompetence of that editor. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that I didn't mention my dispute with JoshuSasori ("his stalker of years ago") even once in this thread. John Carter seems to want to keep bringing this up in order to portray as a "paranoid psychopath", but I seriously have not engaged in any of the paranoid behaviour he accuses me of having engaged in in this thread. I honestly have no idea what bringing JoshuSasori up will accomplish here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As, per the above, John Carter has renewed his long-time request for an IBAN with me, I would also like to request an IBAN with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

    If you'll look at this edit you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. WP:AGF speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's WP:NOTHERE on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground if and only if the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of irreconcilable differences.
    Also, WP:AGF only applies to first-time mistakes, but not repeated vandalism like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction.
    As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in English, from Beoƿulf to Cædmon's Hymn. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPEAKENGLISH refers to Modern English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is made without evidence, and wouldn't even apply to User:Cedric tsan cantonais if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered more from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade here. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak Serbian at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an encyclopaedia.
    Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed his contribs to article talk pages since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist User:In ictu oculi takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am very skeptical about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that clearly aren't there. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of personal attack.
    You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is not an admin; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is here. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is not vandalism.
    Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.
    Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: I have every reason to believe that we're still not on the same page. First, I never accused WG of forcing me to adopt a name without diacritics; Second, all I'm doing is questioning his knowledgeability, which shall be in no way considered a personal attack — In fact, if this counts as personal attacks, I don't know what doesn't. If you wish to question my knowledge in any field, be my guest.
    As for the edit summary you showed, can anyone not suspect vandalism when anyone, anon or not, removes a huge chunk of encyclopaedic content without explaining why?
    Also, I do not know the history between you and User:In ictu oculi, but according to your standard, calling him/her a "notorious untranationalist" can also be considered a personal attack.
    As for why «those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves» is something I simply can't agree with, WP:NOTHUMAN had made it clear already and I do not plan to re-iterate those points here. I'm not gonna re-iterate anything about presuming good faith, either. But there's one thing that I request you to do: Look deeper into those edit histories. All those IP edits repeated changed the sportive nationality of a player without anything that can be considered as reference. WG himself reverted those edits multiple times but those IPs were simply too stubborn to reason with. The first among those edits might be in good faith, but repeatedly doing that? Maybe you, sir, can presume good faith from those, but the way I see it, those are either vandalism or unconstructive edits.
    To be honest, I'm not a fan of treating WP as a battle ground, either. But if those vandalism never happened, neither of us would've been here today. Also, you're making a big mistake by motioning to block me instead of those vandals out there. During my times here in Wikipedia, I dare to say that none of my edits can be considered vandalism. Can you say the same to those vandals out there? I wouldn't think so. Also, why should I be frowned upon just because I demand that all contributors register?
    Finally, I don't spend much time here in English Wikipedia simply because my pro-diacritic stance has attracted too much hostility from other editors. So why should I be frowned upon just because the majority of my edits are not on English Wikipedia? I demand an explanation. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You said WG "allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names". This appears to be a reference to his username having an umlaut; however, you did not provide any evidence of him actually trying to remove diacritics from other users' names.
    I don't know how you failed to notice that my referring to IIO as a "notorious ultranationalist" was a joke when I explicitly said that I was joking in the following sentence. "ultranationalist" is what LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori -- the real anti-diacritic warriors, against whom you never helped us, call him. If you legitimately didn't notice that I was joking, you should apologize to me for your mistake, but even still you should never assume that what I said was meant as a personal attack, even if it had looked like one.
    I never said you should be frowned upon just because the majority of your edits are not on English Wikipedia. Please re-read what I wrote.
    And despite your own unending string of mistakes, you persist in claiming that the legitimate mistakes of others qualify as vandalism.
    If your English level is low enough that you legitimately don't realize that your language is inappropriate and you couldn't understand what I wrote, then we may have a WP:CIR issue on our hands: I generally support users with all levels of English being allowed to edit, but only if they have the humility to admit that they were wrong; you appear to be defensively striking out against anyone you with whom you fail to communicate.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I offer you my apology, sir. Please forgive me for not being able to tell jokes from non-jokes. Honest.
    In the mean time, I never took on LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori because I never knew they existed. Cédric wants to abolish Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you never knew they existed. That is why you should not be lecturing me about the importance of the "diacritic wars"; I am a veteran of them, and you only showed up as they were dying down. You made your very first edit to English Wikipedia a month after the first of them was blocked, scarcely two months before the second was blocked, and five months before the last. You don't know anything about the "diacritic wars", despite your daring to lecture me on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cedric tsan cantonais: This nonsense has to stop. You are not allowed to insult people, not even anonymous editors, and although I share your love of diacritics you have to stop massacring English like you do. 250 characters is plenty for any edit summary, in fact if you come even near to a 100 you should simply write the explanation on the talk page, and write "See Talk: <heading>" as edit summary. And stop accusing people of bad faith when they ask you to follow Wikipedia's rules. You are just in this discussion and the edits that have been linked here in violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:BATTLE. Stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @OpenFuture: Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents... Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good. Uill ju alßo stop prätending yat ye aenglíesc späłing cånväntiöns ðös nawt ehksizt? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @OpenFuture: Þou have just given me every rēson to believe ðat þou þink I'm just anoðer knok-head hwō just adds diacritics for fun, hwich I have no choiç but to take offenç. I do not just switch up letters or add random diacritics for fun. All my use of diacritics are strictly linguistically and etymologically rōted while WG has publicly admitted that the umlaut in his name is merely a "rock band umlaut". If þou woud like to talk about using plain spelling more often, we coud talk, but I nēd you to wiðdraw or at least rephrase ðis. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So where mine, and it doesn't change anything I said. I'm not going to withdraw or rephrase it. If you insist on not using English standard spellings and hence make your communication incomprehensible to people that doesn't reach up to our knowledge of these characters, some sort of administrative action will be necessary. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you want me to switch back to plain English spelling does not mean you can make poor-faith accusations against me like that. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note: I haven't made any accusations I'm a aware of, and definitely not any poor-faith accusations. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I ever made such a statement. The closest I came to discussing the umlaut in my family name with you was when I stated that it's not my legal (de jure) name in Canada. That does not mean that it's not my family name. When my father arrived in Canada, having spelled his name with the umlaut until that time, he was informed that there is no such letter in English and his family name legally became Gorlitz. All of his, and also my, legal documents and public records are spelled that way. However, my signature has the umlaut, because historically, that is my name, and I have done so since I was in university. My cheques and several other non-legal documents use the umlaut. It's certainly not because of my association with rock music or metal though. If I were to live in Germany, or any country where the character is recognized, I would use it. The point I was making when I explained that earlier is that diacritics are not acceptable in modern English, although they have started to to creep in, either as loans from where we get our loan words (such as in naive/naïve, cafe/café) or as hypercorrections (such as maté tea). The average English speaker would be able to easily transliterate the vowel with an umlaut, or diacritic in relation to the English alphabet, whereas they would not be able to do that with a thorn or other character not found in the English alphabet or unfamiliar to the English alphabet. So, for the official record, I am not against diacritics. What I am opposed to is using characters that are not a part of the modern English alphabet or cannot be easily understood by a reader of modern English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais

    I'm usually not one for extreme solutions, but someone who has been on the project for over three years should not be demanding that non-admins block IPs, accusing those IPs of "vandalism" for apparently good-faith edits, accusing those non-admins of imaginary "crusades", or demanding that all IPs be banned from editing English Wikipedia, period, because of something that apparently happened on a different language Wikipedia. Looking at CTC's contributions, it's obvious that the "too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into" were not on English Wikipedia -- this user has made 96 article edits, only four of which were over 1,000 bytes. I don't know what happened to his edits on Cantonese Wikipedia, but it surely can't justify the likes of this edit summary. While it's possible this user has something to contribute (the clean block log on his main project is ... interesting), it's obvious that he is more of a burden on the project than a boon for the time being; indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks.

    @In ictu oculi: Insulting IP editors is only one of several issues here.
    There's also
    1. use of gibberish spellings in edit summaries based on a demonstrably-bogus character-count rationale,
    2. accusing other users of NPA violations based on his own misreading of their comments,
    3. doubling down and refusing to apologize for (2) when it was pointed out to him,
    4. violating AGF by accusing another user of engaging in a "crusade" based on one RM from almost a year ago (by the same logic you would be engaged in the same "anti-diacritic crusade", an absurdity I was quick to point out),
    5. repeatedly calling edits with which he happens to disagree "vandalism" because they happen to have been made by IP editors,
    6. requesting that the admin corps on English Wikipedia engage in some kind of massive anon witchhunt based on something that apparently happened on Cantonese or French Wikipedia,
    7. repeatedly referring to this incident on Cantonese or French Wikipedia as justification for his actions, apparently without actually explaining what happened (FTR, I find it highly unlikely that Cedric repeatedly suffered his hard work being "ruined" by "vandalism" -- vandalism is super-easy to revert; more likely, an IP editor repeatedly made well-sourced and reasonable edits that Cedric didn't like; this is why I want an explanation if Cedric is going to keep using dubious anecdotes about foreign-language wikis to justify his actions here),
    8. requesting that WG block a certain IP editor for making such a "vandalism" edit, despite WG not being an admin,
    9. seemingly accusing WG of trying to change other users' names against their wishes,
    10. repeated use of overly aggressive edit summaries, with swear-words and exclamation marks galore,
    11. defending (10) with "I was reverting obvious vandalism -- how can you not see that!?" -- clearly either unable or unwilling to get the point,
    12. something else that I technically promised not to bring up here unless he persisted, and he hasn't thusfar, but the night is young,
    13. refusing to provide an explanation for any of the above when asked,
    14. engaging in historically offensive hyperbole (look at his sig); whether or not you disagree with such-and-such Wikipedia content guideline (Cedric apparently hasn't looked at the content guideline he complains about with every post he signs in a while, as it does not say what he claims it says) it is not as bad as slavery,
    15. pedantically nitpicking words like "seemingly" and "apparently" in others' criticisms of him in order to dismiss everything they say, and
    16. despite clear reasons being given for criticizing his behaviour apart from his attitude toward IP editors, insisting that this proposal to block him is based on a desire to "censor" his views on IP editors.
    Most of these look like rookie mistakes, and if a legitimate rookie had made them I would say mentor, not block, but in this case the user has been editing on and off for over three years. Some of them are things that you and I have also committed quite late in our editing careers. But the combination of all of them at this time makes me say a block (without prejudice against unblock, assuming a contrite unblock request, which indicates a full understanding of why the block was made and a sincere desire to do better, is made) is the best option for the community.
    And in case it is not clear, my stance on diacritics has not changed in the past three years. I feel the need to clarify this given that little misunderstanding we had on your talk page a short while back. Apparently something in my tone of voice now convinces people that I have turned coat and joined the "anti-diacritic crusade". The reason for the scare-quotes is that, I'm sorry, I am not seeing it as any kind of grand unified crusade since LittleBenW and Kauffner got themselves blocked back in 2013, and Fyunck(click) turned out not to be a massive hypocrite and actually went with the consistent romanization and reliable sources on the Empress Jingū RM around the same time. To quote Basil Exposition, "Austin ... we won."
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Sir, since your accusations full of terms like "seemingly" or "unlikely", I find it nearly impossible to swallow.
    Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 16:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "seemingly" in line with AGF. If I proclaimed definitively that you did refuse to explain yourself when I requested it, when there was still the possibility that you had just misunderstood my request, it would have been in violation. Fortunately for me, your above response indicates that I was 100% correct, and would have been forgiven for leaving out the "seemingly"s. Please, please, please learn to communicate withnother editors. I said the exact opposite of "seek to block you largely because of my stance towards IPs" -- I posted a laundry list of twelve other offenses you had committed, largely against me, that, when combined, appear to me to warrant an indefinite block with possibility of immediate appeal.
    And in my experience, accusing other users of "censorship" has never worked out well for the accuser.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clear: I had never committed any offence against you and I do not intend to, so unless there're miscommunications between us, please stop adding more accusations to the list. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The offenses you commit are against Wikipedia. This is not a personal issue. It's not like you can go around and insult one person and expect that everyone else is OK with that, because they aren't the people being insulted. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cedric tsan cantonais: Yes, you did. I posted one neutral comment above and was met with a flurry of attacks. Of the above, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 were all committed against me within the last 36 hours as punishment for my crime of analyzing the problem as I see it and commenting accordingly. At this point I have no doubt that if you get blocked you will blame me for it and post on your talk page (or perhaps on Wikipediocracy or some such) about how "Hijiri88 blocked you for your pro-diacritic stance", because you refuse to do the damn research and realize that I have a much longer history than you do of defending diacritics on this site. (Also, like WG, I am not an admin; I have no power to block you, so I would appreciate you not claiming that "blocking you" is what I am doing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. Therefore, I simply can't understand why you're still interpreting them as offences against you personally. Just because I'm the defendant here does not mean you can just keeping adding accusations to the list. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". What on earth are you talking about? Where in my above reply to you (or even in my long reply to In ictu oculi) did I even mention personal attacks? All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. There was nothing in your above comment that explained anything about your actions, although you did provide a new rationale for blocking you (see 15). In fact, you have been roundly ignoring every single thing I say. Please address at least one of the 15 points I raised against you in my long comment above. I'll make it easier for you -- I'll put them on different lines to make them more visible for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The interactions so far gives absolutely no indication that Cedric tsan cantonais understands the problems with his behavior, nor has any intention to stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this seems like a drama over next to nothing, not indefinite block material. Cedric tsan cantonais just needs to be told that Wikipedia is a humorless place, so should stop with the funny diacritics, and if you can't fit a decent edit summary into the place provided then use the talk page, and that it is pointless to insult anons since they either exist in that form so that they can't be insulted or engaged with in any meaningful way, or they exist in that form because they are in a country where far worse things that insults could await identifiable editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, he is not joking. Those characters are not "funny". He is dead serious in his invention of a new, consistent (but to normal people incomprehensible) spelling for English. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary Disappearance

    Seeing that there're too much irreconcilable idealogical difference between mainstream English Wikipedia contributors and I, I hereby declare that I'll disappear from English Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. If you want me to stop insulting others, I can do that. However, I reject User:OpenFuture's accusation that my use of diacritics is based on bad faith. I also argue that his refusal to distinguish between linguistically-based use of diacritics and "rock band diacritics" has demonstrated his prejudice against diacritics, which is in contradiction of his claim that he "share[s]" my "love of diacritics". That being said, I also withdraw any and all accusations I've ever made against WG and offer a peace treaty with an apology. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They are not ideological differences. You clearly don't understand my ideology, as you have refused to read my comments. You above very clearly indicate that you have not read User:OpenFuture's comments with any care whatsoever -- where did he/she imply that your "use of diacritics" was "based on bad faith"? This indicates that you clearly have not gotten it, and you will continue your pattern of disruptive behaviour unless you are blocked. Please note that I am not trying to "condemn" or "kill" you -- I want you to read our concerns about your behaviour, to understand our concerns, to apologize and promise never to repeat this behaviour again, and then you will be unblocked and be allowed return to constructive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurs to me that you're not reading my responses, either. I've already stated that I want to treat linguistic use of diacritics and rock band diacritics (which I don't use) as two things and I've already stated that reduction of my diacritic use to open for discussion, but User:OpenFuture refused to treat them separately. If you look at his message above, the diacritics in his message clearly does not follow any etymological pattern. This implies that he does not understand why and how I use diacritic to abbreviate my edit summaries and that he's treating all use of diacritics indistinguishably.
    OTOH, I've already promised that I will stop insulting others and yet you pretend you didn't see those word.
    Also, when you talk about offences against you, the first thing I came up with was personal attack.
    To respond to some of your accusations:
    1. Those are anything but gibberish. Calling them "gibberish" altogether is a give-away that we do not share the same view on diacritics;
    4. Yes, that was my fault, and I apologise.
    5. Those edits had been previously reverted by other users before I got involved.
    7. Just because vandalism is easy to revert does not mean that it doesn't hurt.
    9. Again, my fault, and I apologise.
    10. Again, my fault, and I apologise.
    14. It is disrespecting names that are not of English origins. Therefore, it's bad.
    15. You're making the same mistake, good sir.
    16. Are you seriously intentionally misinterpreting me or what? When did explicitly say I insisted that this was based on "censorship"? You need to stop making wrongful accusations up.
    P.S. I now have reason to believe that we're simply speaking two different languages. And you, good sir, are also making accusations against me based on your incorrect interpretation of my intended-to-be-completely-peaceful words. I never intended to attack or offend you and if I did make you feed offended, I apologise. But I don't think this debate can remain healthy without us understanding what each other intend to say first. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I support use of diacritics when it is accurate and supported by reliable sources. You make up imaginary gibberish spellings of English words, that show your ignorance of many of the points about which you dare to lecture me, such as the correct usage of macrons (they don't turn the letter "o" into /uː/; they almost always mark long vowels, the one exception I can think of being Chinese pinyin, where they indicate a flat tone) and the correct name of the eth (which you inaccurately called a "thorn"). I don't know why you do this -- you said it was because of character count restrictions, which was a blatant lie; it seems to be an attempt to make disruptive edits in order to make a POINT.
    4. I'm glad you apologized. Now please apologize for the rest.
    5. No, I was referring to the Canadian nationality edit. It was not vandalism, and no one but you called it vandalism. Whether other editors supported your reverting it, or reverted the same themselves, is irrelevant. You clearly have not read and understood what qualifies as WP:VANDALISM.
    7. So you are still refusing to give diffs, then? Vandalism is easy to revert, and if you are so thin-skinned that you don't like anons being allowed edit "your" articles from time to time, then you should not be working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
    9. Good, but see 4. above. Also, you should apologize to me for earlier claiming that 9. never happened.
    10. Good, but see 4. above.
    14. Your signature links to a content guideline that you apparently don't like, and likens it to the North American slave trade. This is ridiculously offensive. However, I apologize for misreading the guideline, which does say that diacritics should be avoided in certain circumstances.
    15. You ignored every single thing I said in order to nitpick one word that I said in order to be conservative in my criticism of you. Your outrageous behaviour would have easily justified me not using the word "seemingly", as I was 100% on the money with everything I speculated. And, ironically, in your non-response to this problem you are providing further proof that you are intent on dodging the issue. Also, please don't call me "good sir"; it is belittling.
    16. "Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship."[154] You posted this 11 hours before somehow completely forgetting about it and claiming only a few lines down that it never happened? Did you really think you could get away with this?
    Again, I must say that I have no problem with users with low levels of English being allowed contribute to the project, but they must be humble and apologetic; they should not be aggressively defending everything they say and striking out at other users for criticizing them over their communication problems. If we are having communication problems, it is most certainly not my fault; the only time I used anything other than direct, straightforward English to express myself was when I jokingly/sarcastically referred to In ictu oculi as an infamous Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist and didn't explicitly state that I was joking until the following sentence (although the oxymoron of a "Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist" should have tipped you off even there).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All the spellings I used *were* "correct" in the same sense that your are. (I have not, however, bothered to make sure it was consistently applied). The point was to show how incomprehensible it gets to somebody who does not know the alternative etymology and pronunciations of the characters in question, toungue-in-cheek. You calling it "rock band diacritics" shows with ironic clarity that you indeed didn't understand all of it, as you think I just added diacritics willy nilly. I didn't. Now, if YOU didn't get it, how do you expect the average person that knows nothing about these things to understand it? That's the point. You think you are being clever, and you have some sort of agenda, but all you actually do is make it harder to understand what you write. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @OpenFuture: I have to personal agenda. And seeing that I had mistakenly called your use of diacritics "willy nilly", I offer you an olive branch and an apology. I will disappear from English Wikipedia soon after this discussion is closed, but if you wish to kindly let us drink to the love of diacritics, my doors at the Wikimedia Incubator are open to you. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good that you now understand that you misunderstood my diacritics. I'm saddened to see that you don't realize that others will similarly misunderstand yours. You are of course free to leave, but it's such a silly thing to do. The Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason, you could just follow them instead. But that's your choice, of course. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A block for bad behaviour and missing the point

    • Support Cedric tsan cantonais's edits are usually factual. What I find problematic is his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters. He has agreed to avoid both, but a block, even a short one, would record this decision in the block log. A permanent block or voluntary departure would be a disservice to the community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 24-hour block I would say longer, given the massive IDHT mess throughout the above discussion (how many times do I have to explain things to him...), but he has a clear block log at the moment, so technically this is a first offense. I would also disagree with WG's rationale that the worst are "his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters"; several named users, including both WG and myself, have probably had it worse than anons at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support - It feel punitive, but the argument that it gets logged is reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

    User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [155] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [156]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much Calidum for the link) [157]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful hound, and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See User:Lips Are Movin for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making false sockpuppeting accusations to clogging up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he took this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes WP:POLEMIC writings about me on his user page, and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to WP:DOX my country here. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Calvin accepted stuff like [158] and [159] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it be an issue? Further, this comment from you, "to be at the center of drama for whatever reason" makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Official discussion

    That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, MaranoFan. It was not appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sergecross73, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page after the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, Serge, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I know Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I am not an admin, Sergecross73! The Support !votes only slightly outnumber the Oppose ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide Support majority later... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - If MaranoFan wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--ML (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: Is this enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable here. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [167], this diatribe [168] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [169]. Calidum ¤ 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if Winkelvi sees faults with MaranoFan's editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read WP:CANVAS and WP:ADMINSHOP closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like WP:TPO which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and frequently correct critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hasteur: But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [170] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your competence because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, possible boomerang based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. WP:BOOMERANG applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that you get your facts straight. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mandruss: Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then Chesnaught555 started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, Mandruss. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply informally staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- MrX 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. only (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Changing to support based on this discussion, which clarified the need for this IBAN. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting turn of events. Especially since the original premise for your "Oppose" !vote was "Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting." - and that premise/observation remains the same (as far as I'm aware and based on my own continued non-interaction with MF). I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you have changed this out of the blue, Coretheapple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't answer for Core, but personally, its the way you badger and bicker with anyone who disagrees with you in these discussions with these snippy responses, coupled with the fact that these issues with Marano have been spanning months (years?) now. I know you probably feel you're just "defending yourself" or something, but constant aggressive responses doesn't exactly send the "I'm not the type of person to be hounding someone" message you're going for here, nor does it instill confidence about this issue just going away on its own without any action taken. You're not exactly portraying yourself in the best light in these responses (and similar bickering/badgering from Calvin and Ches probably aren't helping either, they just make this all look like an even bigger mess.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that puts it well. My sentiments entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your explanation and Core's agreement with same makes no sense in that (1) It has nothing to do with the IBan proposal; (3) When Core changed her !Vote, I hadn't responded to anyone in this thread for a considerable amount of time; (3) The reasoning you gave seems to be based on a punitive mindset. In other words, "If you respond to comments and defend yourself we will punish you for doing so". None of this has anything to do with interaction between MF and myself (which there hasn't been for a week now), doesn't establish a need for an IBan (no one, including the filer, has been able to provide any evidence to support that need) and certainly doesn't fit the picture of action taken to prevent disruption (prevention, not punishment). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, based on your response, you're not following what I'm saying at all. I'm not criticizing the fact that you're responding/defending yourself, its the way you're going about doing it. Think of it this way. Have you ever witnessed this exchange: A person says something with their voice raised. Another person, in response, says "Please don't raise your voice, I don't like it when you're angry." Then, the first person responds by screaming "I'm not angry! You'll know when I'm angry!". Generally, you'll find the second person unconvinced, because, you know, screaming is a common sign of being angry. Bringing this back to you, you're essentially defending the accusation that you're hounding this editor, by going about hounding anyone who disagrees with you. It makes your argument...hard to believe. You've got an explanation for every example people provide you, but the fact that we keep having these discussions, makes your dismissals hard to buy into. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do now see your point, Sergecross73. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I do see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--MaranoFan (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit as of 09:41, 30 March 2016 proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.
    I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.
    Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.
    I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen here) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [171]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is not wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.
    There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, "In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN." No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the previous proposal a year ago by Calidum, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for months. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and highly provocative behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required.  — Calvin999 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot meet kettle, you are both black.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Racist.  — Calvin999 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Calvin999 Were you joking? WP:KETTLE's existence is ample testimony to this metaphor being widely understood on English Wikipedia, and if you seriously think your being called "black" in this case was about race, then you should be more careful about responding before clicking on the links. In my experiences, calling you a kettle when you call someone else "rude, non-compliant, unwilling to listen and failing to understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia" is a perfectly reasonable argument. (I haven't looked at the rest of the content here, so I'm not sure if you were technically correct; I only posted here because when my browser refreshed after I posted a comment in another thread it jumped around a bit, and my cursor wound up hovering over the word "racist", which peaked my interest.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable Adele song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]. And calling Winkelvi a "very placid, calm and peaceful editor" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required.  — Calvin999 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with.". Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, Softlavender. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus" Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into boomerang territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.
    "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick" Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    K. Here's one, in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim was, "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick". I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: "I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings.", and then further claim that I stated I "...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request" Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "No one is keeping score, here" Sure. No one is keeping score. That's a laugh. Obviously, you're thinking of what happens at the My Little Pony and Rainbow Unicorn Noticeboard at Cotton Candy-pedia rather than ANI at Wikipedia. And yes, you have mischaracterized what I said. Several times. Which tells me I need to stop saying anything to you because every time I have responded to you in this report, you've turned my actual words and obvious meaning into something else entirely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with Fortuna here... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, Mirela. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chesnaught555: A sub-section, yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Mirela and Fortuna - filed as subsection below. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. SSTflyer 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see any recent edit warring from me, SSTflyer. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to understand the history on the first SPI filed a year ago. I had been undergoing an extreme amount of unrelenting tag-team harassment by both parties named in the SPI in my userspace. It seemed to me (and others at the time, including Calidum who emailed me about opening an SPI on MaranoFan but has since turned on me for reasons I am completely unclear about) that they were the same editor, especially considering how it was all occurring. If you'd like diffs, Starke, I can provide them for you). The latest SPI was poor judgement on my part and I shouldn't have done it. I'm not saying this because of your comment or because of this IBan proposal, but because I have had time to think about it and realized that it was not the best thing for me to do. We all learn from our mistakes, and the last SPI was a mistake on my part. The other one, however, was warranted considering what was happening at the time. The harassment was horrible - and was noted as such by more than one administrator and several editors. It did look like the two were the same person. Link to that SPI here. One more thing: I wasn't the only one who thought MF was socking, Chasewc91 did as well and filed another SPI on MF a few months later here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support an IBAN, but I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (Correcting, now support IBAN.) Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. Softlavender's characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for the love of christ... "someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. Drmies, Bbb23, NeilN, Ritchie333: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style." Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to point out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was bending over backwards by calling it a red herring, and the diffs cited by MF were gratuitous and provocative, and appeared to have the desired effect. Clearly you are impervious to reason over this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WV loves one way interaction bans. How many editors has be banned from his talk page now? Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose WV is not the problem here. Possible boomerang considering the behavior documented above. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support These 2 editors, despite the well-established truth that nothing productive comes of their relationship, cannot seem to stay away from each other on their own. It is time for the Wikipedia community to take action and prevent needless bickering. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am starting to see Sergecross' point re: my responses to comments in this thread, I will not be silent on this !vote. Clearly a retaliatory move based on this exchange and my comments here. Prior to the AN/I he filed, I had not heard of this user and have never had any interaction with them previously. I realize anyone is allowed to comment at AN/I regardless of previous interaction, however, I think that the diffs I provided here along with this diff to Wolfchild's block log (numerous blocks specifically for harassing other editors) gives a good picture of what their !vote is really all about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for pointing out that I have an active report on ANI - that's why I'm here. And yes, our recent interactions demonstrated to me your poor attitude towards others and this project in general. Unlike you, I actually took the time to read through the ANI I'm commenting on, and can easily see that an IBAN is the best way to protect the project from any further disruption caused by you two interacting. The fact that sooo many others here agree with this assessment speaks volumes, and you should spend more time considering your actions and attitude, instead of attacking others. ("Block log" indeed... have you ever heard the saying about "People in glass houses"...?) You should worry about your own, very active, very recent, block log, instead of mine. - theWOLFchild 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing this?

    Do any admins feel like reviewing this to determine if an interaction ban should be enacted as requested? I'd rather not see another meaningful discussion be archived prematurely. Calidum ¤ 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that would be great if someone could help out. Its been going for about a week and a half now, and discussion has slowed down to a crawl. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan

    Having taken this into consideration, I have decided that it is in the best interest of MaranoFan and the rest of the community if I withdraw this proposal. There is no way this proposal will succeed, and furthermore, it is only adding to the incessant, exponentially increasing drama. No further !votes will be taken into consideration: the final decision is Oppose. (non-admin closure) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Suggested by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who stated that MF's "behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times". MaranoFan's canvassing of other editors and lack of evidence supporting a reason for an IBAN between them and Winkelvi calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions - not to mention the uncivil behaviour over on my talk page, which MF has stated was directed at me simply because I wanted to archive an escalating thread: Here and here. Posting now to avoid edit conflicting - will edit this post as time goes on. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, and Ches is no one's meat-puppet. Please stop with the nasty, hateful personal attacks and unfounded allegations against other editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I'm not here to represent anybody else's views. I have my own, and this is essentially my proposal (two other editors had agreed with it beforehand, neither of whom were Winkelvi). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I would support based on the the reasons given. There is nothing good-faith about MF, but I will agree that she has been trying her best (at being disruptive, rude and disrespectful). I don't think an IBAN would be sufficient as MF just can't help herself.  — Calvin999 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The whole notion of this discussion is laughable. Some admin please speedy archive this. Lolol.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't oppose (or support) a block on yourself. It's obvious that you wouldn't agree. You're not even taking this seriously and you are being disrespectful. Also, no admin will help you when you are calling them "some admin".  — Calvin999 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes you can. There are no restrictions on who can vote; I done the same thing with myself in the past. JAGUAR  16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Didn't I ask you to never communicate with me again. (Rhetorical; doesn't require an answer). 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Thats irrelevant, what you said is objectively wrong, and any number of people would have said the same thing if he hadn't. And even that's ignoring the insane odds against this poorly thought out proposal. You're only reinforcing the idea that you're probably amongst the group of 3-4 editors that can't stop with the petty bickering that inspired a call for an Iban in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is relevant, shows you are an uninvolved editor. MF wants the IBAN too, so. Several editors here have said Oppose but have written that is is still a viable option to block MF. So it is more than 3-4 really.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - There doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification to block MaranoFan, so long as he agrees to keep his comments civil. Lack of evidence and canvassing, while not encouraged behavior, isn't a "blockable" offense to me - provided that he stops the canvassing when asked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose MF has done nothing to deserve this proposition of a block. Calvin on the other hand, well... JAGUAR  15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The feeling is reassuringly mutual, Jaguar. Please grow up and stop harassing me/mentioning me/talking about me. You're coming across like a child.  — Calvin999 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was just pointing out the fact that anybody can vote in any debate, even if it's a block imposed on the intended user. I don't know how that's considered harassing. Believe me, I would be over the moon if somebody created a sub-thread "Proposed interaction ban between Calvin and Jaguar". JAGUAR  21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Since MF is a good-faith editor, a block for this user is a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose-My vote is probably not needed here, but I'll give it anyway. It is unfair to block only MaranoFan. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Arbitrary break

    Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    MaranoFan, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the Oppose !voters. This will not help your case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a court case, MaranoFan. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Good one, NE Ent. Thanks for the initial confusion, the good hearty laugh, commemorating the spirit of the day, and closing this nonsense. Best to you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

    See also: § Harassment getting worse

    It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

    Karaites

    1)
    2)
    3)
    4)
    5)
    6)
    7)
    8)
    9)
    10)
    11)
    12)
    13)

    Qaraimits

    [1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here
    [2)]
    3)]

    Karaite

    1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP
    2)
    3)
    4)


    The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please look at this edit in particular [177] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [178]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [179]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [180] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[181]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [182] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.
    You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [183] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [184]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [185] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [186] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.
    And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.
    As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[187]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)[reply]
    But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [188]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[189] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.
    I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [190] especially [191][192][193]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [194]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [195] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at YuHuw edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    YuHuw is editing as an IP editor again. He is "answering" a question raised at Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

    A month ago I was blissfully unaware of Jytdog. Then he caused a car crash at the RepRap project article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [196][197] and this ANI thread. Today he's suggesting I need to get a "Moron Diploma".

    Both of these show just the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with editors and their work dismissed as "Garbage content based on garbage sources".

    I noticed this today at User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning. As those with long memories will know, there is little love lost between Wtshymanski and myself, but I've always recognised that he knew his subject - a courtesy clearly not being extended by Jytdog here.

    As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with beryllium. He proceeded to 4RR edit war [198][199][200][201] to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the vast numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.

    The main problem though is less what he did and more how he goes about it. Just take a look at the talk page comments, accusing Wtshymanski of edit-warring and my talk page (14 posts tonight!). See also WP:RSN#Documents uploaded to ScribD. This battlegrounding is just not acceptable here - other editors, even myself, just do not deserve this bile from Jytdog. This is far from a new problem either, ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.
    I removed one sentence (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - here is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.
    As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has commented there many times; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which he had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.
    As I did at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and not follow me around picking fights. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.
    About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page here his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I had written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was here. I removed it before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it). His inappropriate comments still stand.
    And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.
    Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It is true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.
    I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    Does this look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. here is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-in-the-citations content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hello again Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media.) Andreas JN466 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not what he does that's the problem it's how he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is not the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.
    Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply wrong? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on acute beryllium poisoning is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is not a positive outcome to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of CaptainYuge over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that he had decided were unfit to edit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved non-admin comment
      • Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
      • Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
      • Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad (version before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS (version when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You say " I have no desire to be in this discussion. " at Talk: as if that's a good thing. You're great at seagull management, but you refuse to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.
    As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an occupational condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.
    This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt, are you trying to redefine WP:INVOLVED here? You and Winkelvi are behind the most fatuous and obviously biased deletion I've seen at Commons in years: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz_MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility and tone. There's a thoroughly trivial deletion request at Commons that you started, I commented upon, and now you show up here just to cause trouble. Coincidence? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumptions of bad faith by the filer are remarkable evidence of further WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, or at the very least, failure to recognize I've already commented in multiple threads on this ANI page in the past 24 hours about many different topics. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So tell us Cirt, just what did bring you to an article on this obscure medical condition? You're fooling no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and disruption by Andy Dingley

    Despite this, unfortunately it appears the filer of this ANI thread has continued the edit-warring, disruption, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. When Jytdog left, the filer picked right up edit-warring against a different editor. Some examples of recent disruption:

    Unfortunately, this now appears to be an ongoing pattern of disruption against multiple editors by the ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cirt, please do not remove this note for a third time. You are making a now false statement in defence of Jytdog, who has clearly not behaved as he promised to. To keep reinstating this claim, against an obvious edit history to the contrary, is to whitewash the behaviour of the subject of this ANI post. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, for not adding this comment in-between my above comment, as you wrongly did previously, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are complaining of me edit-warring here (despite Jytdog already being at 4RR), then you know where ANEW is.
    Cirt, you are only here because of a bizarre deletion request you and Winkelvi are involved in at Commons and both of you saw this as a good opportunity to troll me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pure content dispute, no clear evidence of edit warring submitted by OP (edit: referring to Andy Dingley). In fact, the claim of "4RR" implies that Jytdog violated 3RR on some article. I don't see what article that is. As of the filing of this complaint, on Berylliosis, Jytdog had only performed 3 non-consecutive edits in the previous 24 hours, and one was not a revert as far as I can tell. The claim of edit warring seems spurious as well, or at least unproven. I concur that a boomerang sanction or admonishment should lie, not only for the (I'll assume unintentionally) misleading complaint, but also for the combative stream of responses in this thread. This is a massive waste of time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv:I thought the term "edit warring" and "disruption" meant any type of edit warring, not only solely 3RR itself. Surely there is ongoing disruption at the article by the original ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, where I said OP I was referring to Andy Dingley's OP in the top section. Perhaps I should have made my comment up there rather than down here. I've added a clarifier. Anyway, I agree that there's actually ongoing disruption at Berylliosis by Andy Dingley, as you've shown above Cirt. I think that taken with Andy's conduct in the original thread here, some sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And now that Andy has retroactively amended his initial posting to include diffs of a supposed "4RR edit war", we can see that there's a greater than 24 hour gap in the claimed reverts. While the term "4RR" is meaningless (there is no four revert rule), terms like that are almost exclusively used to refer to a violation of 3RR involving more reverts (actually 4RR shouldn't be used at all since a 3RR violation necessarily involves 4 reverts). Someone making four non-consecutive reverts in a 72 hour period hasn't violated 3RR. If Andy intends to prove that those four reverts add up to an edit war, I think we're going to need more than that. Worst case, Jytdog should be told to be careful not to violate 3RR, and that edit warring can be called in the absence of a 3RR violation. I'm more concerned with Andy Dingley's conduct. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When you complain over a lack of diffs, don't then call to block someone when they give you those diffs! 3RR/24 is a "bright line" for edit-warring. As any of ANEW will inform you though, this is not the only indication of edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't say 4RR when you don't intend to mean the person has violated 3RR, then. The second "R" in 3RR means "rule". When you say 4RR you're implying a rule was broken. I don't see it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy Dingley has now followed me to yet another article and his intent to WP:HOUND is clear - here is where he reverted me, and again restoring badly/unsourced sourced content (this time what was sourced, was sourced to Investopedia). I am now requesting a 48 hour block to prevent further disruption and a 1-way interaction ban for Andy with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Followed"? To an article I edited months ago? Don't flatter yourself.
    There is no justification in using a valid complaint against a source to start blanking whole paragraphs as well, when they contain simply sourceable, uncontroversial content for which there are abundant other sources.
    And what's your excuse for this edit? [205] Sheer carelessness. Which you insisted on doing twice, even when reverted by another editor. You are too blinkered by your desire to Right Great Wrongs to even pay attention to what you're doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have apparently become your "great wrong" to right. I believe you will be blocked and will face an i-ban for hounding me, but we will see. You are continually bringing unclean hands with your editing decisions here; your edits are clearly POINTy and about me, and not about high-quality content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very good at assigning all sorts of motives to other editors. This was a question about your edits here. Why was your (seriously wrong) edit so important that you had to do it twice, over another editor? Have you even looked at what you did here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angry or not, it is remarkable how often Jytdog is mentioned on this page due to battleground issues. To the point that he even had a ArbCom-case and a indefinite topic ban on his head... The Banner talk 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Andy Dingley has his "fans", I have mine. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Andy needs to be encouraged to work on something else. I think a short-term interaction ban will do that. If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term. I'm just not a fan of indef editing restrictions out the gate, and would rather not block a long-term editor when there's another way to convey the message to "Do something else". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A "one way" ban? Why? So that Jytdog can keep awarding me "Moron Diplomas"? So that he can describe adding needed sources as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content"? Or just so that he can keep describing other editors' work as "Garbage content based on garbage sources" and "demeaning to WP"? And this is all from "Mr Clean Hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jytdog starts poking the beehive once a restriction is in place, then we can talk. If there's support for it instead, though, I could see a temp two-way interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can live with the try-a-short-term remedy approach. I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that fix. Yes I didn't catch that my removal of the WP:ELNO-violating external links included the cats and navbox. Thanks for catching that. Another user removed those ELs after you reverted me. Again, my bad on the cat/navbox removals. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I haven't insinuated that Jytdog is a moron or garbage, as they have. I'm not the one making 4RR edits, or pushed repeated edits that another uninvolved editor has compared to a vandal or a CIR case.
    Cirt is the one calling for an interaction ban, and they're (like Winkelvi) only popping up unannounced because I called them both out over a bogus deletion request at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The short answer is because you seem to be refusing to drop the stick here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which stick is that? I've had a stream of abuse from Jytdog and I'm entitled to respond to it. Have I edited the Berylliosis article since? Have you seen my edits since with QuackGuru? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So what does bring you here, Cirt, if it's not your push to delete at Commons? I know Winkelvi already happened to be on the carpet at ANI over his behaviour in trying to delete the whole article. You're staying awfully quiet on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Already answered, above. I echo Tryptofish at this point, please drop the stick here. Thank you ever so much, — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting scary ALLCAPS is no substitute for answering the question. Go on, why are you and Winkelvi here at all if it's not just simple retaliation against another editor who challenged your behaviour at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is retaliation. They were not involved until you disagreed with them concerning the Heidi Cruz picture above. They should just move along and let unbiased editors work out the issues with Jytdog. It is shameful the way that Admin Cirt is retaliating against your on the spot comments at Commons. Cirt is an admin and he should know better.--ML (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Wrong. I'd already commented in multiple locations on this ANI page in numerous different threads before this one. — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy you have stopped pursuing me out there in the 'pedia and I am grateful for that. And I have heard your concern here about my harshness. I have. If you would agree to let this go, this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that. I hope you will agree. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must say that it's incredibly surprising how many WP:BATTLEGROUND complaints there are about Jytdog here. Almost every time I check this noticeboard, in fact. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 07:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If one develops a bit of a reputation, or if others see a complaint, then it is certainly possible that they can just play "follow the leader." Smoke often indicates fire, but isn't really proof of it. Jytdog deals in a number of truly contentious topics, and as a result faces a lot of criticism. It isn't unreasonable to see someone who themselves is a frequent target of others to develop a bit of a battleground view if they see that others are to an extent engaged in battleground behavior toward them. Yeah, I've had some fairly strong disagreements with him myself, whether he remembers them or not, and I can see that maybe he is a bit too "quick on the trigger" once in a while. In at least some of the topics he edits in, several other editors don't get reported here, but taken to AE to be dealt with there, sometimes rather severely. That doesn't seem to be the case here, thankfully. Personally, I don't see a lot to be done here myself, other than maybe application of a WP:TROUT or smaller fish to one or more individuals, and hope that such a light reprimand might be found acceptable. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Further harassment by Jytdog using SPI

    Far from disengaging or "this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that.", Jytdog has now proceeded to open a deliberately harassing SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

    This is not a new tactic for Jytdog. He did it to CaptainYuge a few weeks ago. In that case he also refused to accept the decision of the SPI and continued to harrass and insult the presumed innocent Yuge: User talk:Jytdog#Final warning for edit warring Although in that same thread he says he wouldn't try it on me! Mind you, given his other statements of ":I am unwatching this article. I have no desire to be in this discussion." and " I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it." and their retrospective lack of accuracy, we can't place too much faith in any such statement.

    Baseless accusations of socking with no other purpose are considered to be a form of harassment.

    Just above, Mendaliv refers to the possibility of, "If Jytdog starts poking the beehive". I consider this beehive thoroughly poked. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If Jytdog has suspicions about one editor, there are acceptable channels to deal with that. These do not involve raising baseless SPIs on other uninvolved editors, especially not those editors with whom Jytdog is already deeply WP:INVOLVED. False accusations of socking breach NPA and this is not the first time that Jytdog has used this method. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusations by Jytdog are valid and led to a block by JzG (talk · contribs). Therefore they were not baseless. WP:INVOLVED links to Wikipedia:Administrators. Jytdog is not an administrator, last time I checked. — Cirt (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The block was good because it was a block." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you are using quotation marks here in a misleading manner. I never said that. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, literally, "Therefore". Implying that their baselessness was refuted because they had already been acted upon. This is an obvious logical fallacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reasonable to say that something which is acted upon is not baseless, unless one wishes to imply that the person acting upon it is acting perhaps irrationally. The question is whether Andy is reasonably the sockpuppet master here. I tend to very much doubt that is the case myself, but there are and/or have been cases of editors who seem to be working together which are all but indistinguishable in some cases from sockpuppets. The only way one can know whether an SPI concern is valid is through filing one, ultimately, and, while it might conceivably if done too frequently be seen as an abuse of that procedure, it is at best a very long stretch in at least my eyes to say that a single instance of filing an SPI which is found to be actionable in some way necessarily qualifies primarily as a personal attack on the person perhaps falsely named as the sockmaster. Jytdog can at times be a bit overenthusiastic in some areas, and it may be that in this case the party named is not the sockpuppeteer. But there are conceivably sockpuppets of meatpuppets, or other forms of off-wiki coordination (none of which I suspect here either). There are also, sometimes, simply, old troublemakers coming back at an unfortunate time. The request seems to have been a reasonable one, even if the individual named probably isn't the real sock master, and I can't criticize anyone for basically finding an obvious sock, even if they get the identity of the sockpuppeteer wrong. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, John Carter (talk · contribs), I agree that the SPI investigation was warranted, and it is certainly possible the case page name may be changed by the end of it, but there was at least one sock blocked by an admin so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: There was a sock blocked by an admin based on behavioral evidence. After the fact, technical evidence proved the account were unrelated. That block should've been overturned unless the account could be tied to a different master.--v/r - TP 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the block log note by JzG (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who."
    For NOTHERE, that's a hell of a judgement to make for an editor who has made one article space edit, one to the talk: page and two to a user talk:. We can't get real vandals blocked in that time, let alone indeffed.
    As a sock, then "it doesn't matter much who." is shorthand for "indef block from an unproven suspicion" (and in this case, a disproved suspicion). We have, or used to have, some policies that said admins couldn't make arbitrary blocks on their own whim, there had to be some process first. For socking it is SPI. In this case they were blocked during the SPI (Why? What was the urgency for an editor with only one article edit?) and an SPI that then cleared them of being the claimed sock. Yet you are still defending this indef block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • just a quick note here; i was not happy filing that SPI and I hope it isn't Andy. As I noted in the filing, the behavior of the new account was just too weird. I'll note here is somebody at 62.255.240.157 (a library in the UK) stirring the pot: dif, dif, dif. The now-blocked Milligansuncle? This is all just weird but I clearly have a new hater. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI was just closed. I have a bad feeling about all this; the person editing from the library obviously understands how to avoid CU etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI was closed. But half an hour later you're still insinuating that 62.255.240.157 is someone's sock (presumably mine!). You also seem to know that it's "a library in the UK", but how you might know such a thing is beyond me.
    You did this over CaptainYuge too. Opening an SPI is one thing, but to continue to insinuate that someone is a sock and the SPI was just wrong not to notice this is harassment. It's also a very convenient reversal of your position over the block of Milligansuncle: when your enemies are blocked arbitrarily, that's "proof". When an SPI concludes against socking though, that's because the SPI must have been wrong, compared to your magic library finding powers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The block of Milligansuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was based primarily on [206] taken in the context of the totality of the user's edits. I don't give a damn whose sock it is, it's not a new user and definitely not here to help. That kind of JAQing off we can do without. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone reading the IP's talk page will read that it is a library. And WHOIS says Reading Borough Council (Library Project). Doug Weller talk 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the RIPE is correct, then maybe. The talk page comment is 7 years old though. Looking at the route, it looks (IMHO) much more like a general Virgin retail ISP for South Yorkshire. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog, when did you stop beating your wife? Your comments here, "An SPI itself is just an investigation; a question." show that you still, even after this, have no understanding of SPI. As the edit notice on the SPI page itself states, "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." This is not merely a "question", an SPI is a strong insinuation that someone is guilty of an offence with a summary ban. You do not throw such things around lightly. You certainly do not do them in the middle of an ANI thread where the subject of your accusation has shown evidence of your abusive and harassing behaviour.
    Why, in all this, do you feel the need to apologise to Conzar, but not me? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Conzar is new to WP and doesn't understand how things work here, and if you read what i actually wrote to them, you will see that i didn't apologize. I explained. You are more experienced and usually sane; if you look at the evidence I presented at the SPI and especially the way I presented it, you will see how strange the behavior of the account has been, and how it weirdly pointed to you. And you will see neither glee nor anger in my filing, but puzzlement seeking answers. It is SPI and not SPA ( as in "accusation"). You call it "fatuous" below and cite the instructions above. You have been around long enough to know that a CU would not have been done at SPI if I hadn't brought enough evidence to justify that; I did and it was. You are so angry that you are warping things left and right, and that isn't helping you convince anyone and you put yourself at risk for community action the more you keep pushing this way. You are on a warpath and you should get off it, Andy. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add here that when i wrote the SPI I considered writing: "it may be that this is a really sophisticated sock that wanted me to believe it was Andy (the edit at Calvert's Engine being just a bit too blatantly perfect a "tell") and who ever it is may laugh their asses off after i post this, and will surely laugh harder at how angry it will make Andy, especially if the sockmaster turns out not to be Andy (which would not surprise me)." I didn't write that because it is too conspiratorial sounding and i really wanted the CU done, but it is seeming less unlikely now, especially given the behavior of the 65 IP address subsequent to the SPI filing, which just stirred the pot yet further. anyway, that is the "pot-stirring set-up" theory behind that sock ...Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, DO NOT describe other editors - any other editors - as "usually sane", with the obvious implication that they're currently insane.
    I put myself at risk of community action? When did I describe you as a moron? When did I file an SPI against you? Especially not one so unconvincing that you describe it yourself as "strange" and "weird".
    Stop these attacks. You have gone on long enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy I wish you would calm yourself. I said above that I don't want to interact with you, and I don't. You have asked me direct questions twice now. I answered the first, and I will answer the second, and then no more. The SPI had enough evidence that a CU was performed. I didn't file the SPI gleefully nor angrily. I didn't distort anything. And I didn't actually call you a moron and even after I wrote that you should accept the "moron certificate" (as a valid source) in the same way you accepted the other as a valid source, i removed that and acknowledged it was inflammatory, and you keep writing as though I am defending it or even left it in place. I'm not.
    You are not acting rationally here; you are distorting and attacking and attacking - like just in this exchange, describing an SPI that was solid enough to get a CU as "fatuous" or as somehow invalid, and saying that i outright called you a "moron" or "garbage".
    On top of that, you keep pushing for ... something... and lashing out, but whatever it is that you want is not happening. The only sanctions under discussion have been a one-way iban on you, and possibly a mutual one. That's it.
    As I have said before, it doesn't seem that my interacting with you is productive at all - so I will go back to trying to avoid you.
    I'll end by repeating what I wrote above; the best thing all around would just be to let his go. I do understand your original objection. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read the SPI, and although it looks like most or all of the combatants are physically separated from one another, it also looks like there are an awful lot of people in diverse places who are looking to hound Jytdog. With respect to the ANI discussion here, it sure looks to me like an interaction ban is overdue. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, per the subsection above, or two-way. But I think the goal here needs to be to get as much disengagement as we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need for any sort of ban on him, I just want him to stop filing fatuous SPIs against me. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • further to the pot-stirring theory, this SPI was filed claiming that Cirt and I are one person based on this thread. The filer of that is apparently watching this with some glee. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the filer of that SPI: I looked at the SPI, and there is something that I would like admins to take a second look at there. After the SPI was closed with no action (and, indeed, it is patently ridiculous), but before it was archived, another editor posted a note there, saying that the filer is a sock of another account, that has been indeffed for other instances of socking, but there is no explanation of the connection in this case. (Not related in any way to Andy, please let me make clear.) I don't know what to make of that, but given the clearly disruptive intention of the filing, it seems likely that something is going on there, and it merits a second look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    178.217.194.100's long-term edit warring and continued addition of unsourced statistics

    Last year, Jolly Janner and I repeatedly tried to explain to 178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at User talk:178.217.194.100 the need to source additions of statistics to demography articles. The editor largely ignored our advice, and engaged in edit warring. As well as adding statistics without sources, their additions are often poorly formatted, they have ignored repeated advice about the correct use of commas for thousand separators and full stops for decimal points, and the edits are likely in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I noticed today that the editor has resumed their behaviour, restoring unsourced material that was recently removed from the Demographics of France article and re-adding statistics about England and Wales to Demography of England that were previously removed. I think that enough is enough and some action needs to be taken to stop this disruptive behaviour. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that wasn't reverted? Jolly Ω Janner 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to advice about correct formatting, suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this still a problem? I see a comment from the IP editor acknowledging a problem with their editing and recent edits try to provide a source, although the formatting isn't ideal. Zad68 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • He seems to have acquired a fetish for raw survey data used to calculate population pyramids. I suggest all of them be removed. Only the population pyramid itself would be useful in an encyclopedia. I've suggested a possible workaround to it on his talk page. In the meantime, we will have to remove all the survey data from our articles. I would still welcome a block, since we've previously advised workarounds, but the user doesn't listen. I don't hold much hope on this occasion either. Jolly Ω Janner 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please block this user soon? Another round of disruptive edits today after ignoring my alternative on their talk page. I've cleaned up some pages, but it takes a long time to revert them all. As they admitted, they are trying to add it to every country. Jolly Ω Janner 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    James J. Lambden is wikistalking me.

    James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:WIKISTALKing me to articles simply to WP:WIKIHOUND my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for white pride against consensus [207]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [208], [209]

    jps (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, Michelle Fields and Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in anything so far) would be the timing.
    That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say block for 24 hours, with a warning that following users you disagree with is a form of WP:HARASSMENT and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You demand (you use the word "say" rather than "suggest") a block, and as reasoning link to an advice page, a page that actually gives you no support for this demanded block. The act of following users you disagree with is not a form of harassment as defined in the page you linked. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". In what way is work by jps being confronted or inhibited? In addition, in what way do any edits by James J. Lambden involve "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior"? These things are required to be present before a block can be imposed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And now this. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad hominem attacks

    I'm asking for some help on Talk:Spark (horse). While it's clear that Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) is making great progress on this article, it appears he's taken ownership and any other opinions are met with ad hominem arguments [210], [211], [212], [213] effectively saying he's an elite editor and I'm not qualified to edit the article I created.

    DYKs are great but they shouldn't get in the way of cooperation and having quite a few of them isn't an excuse to bully other editors. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a fair bit of boasting, and some belittling of your work which is not appropriate. Where has he said you may not edit in an area?
    I think the best course of action would be to simply remind @Doug Coldwell: that we are all volunteers, and even if you have an amazing body of work that it is not appropriate to belittle the work other editors. HighInBC 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, @Doug Coldwell: effectively said that by his demeaning comments. It's difficult to interpret them differently. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin, horsey comment. Doug Coldwell does seem to be belittling Toddst1 for not having DYKs. DYKs are good but are not the reason for writing articles; sharing knowledge is. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Add, the next day: the DYK hook Doug Coldwell is using for the article isn't even accurate. Bull Rock was the first Thoroughbred racehorse in the US, not Spark. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toddst1:Wow that's inappropriate behavior you've cited above, I gotta agree here. I myself have sometimes commented on talk pages noting my successful Quality improvement efforts, but I've strived not to do so in a demeaning manner and never in direct comparison to others' quality improvement efforts and certainly not in a comparative denigrating way like that. Wholly inappropriate and not conducive to building an encyclopedia together as a community. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption?

    I would like to know how this comment is justifiable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Not appropriate, but not worth bringing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I think it's rude, but that's all. If there's some underlying pattern of disruption I'm not aware of, that might be something else, but even then something that mild couldn't be the straw that broke the camel's back in my view. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the first time he's gotten snippy in the edit summary on this issue, but it seems to be accelerating.[214][215][216] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to say I agree here with Baseball Bugs this behavior is inappropriate and not conducive to collaborative building of an encyclopedia together. — Cirt (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Baseball Bugs. Although his edits concern site-related stuff (pp template), it still is a form of POV-pushing IMO. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 19:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Panama Papers

    I'm sorry if this looks like canvassing, since I left a message a few minutes ago at WP:BLP/N too. but I'd appreciate additional eyes (preferably eyes familiar with WP:BLP) at Panama Papers, in particular the list of specific people alleged to be clients. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's being handled ok, or if anything too conservatively. E.g. the name getting the most press attention is Vladimir Putin, but he's not even mentioned in the wiki article because his involvement was through an intermediary, and the intermediary isn't mentioned either, maybe because he's not a head of state (he is a cellist closely associated with Putin). 173.228.123.194 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: @Floquenbeam: I don't think it's canvassing, especially if it's a very short brief succinct neutrally worded notice. I'd suggest posting notices to the article talk pages of those subjects related to the issue in the article. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The alleged Putin connection and the allegations re. his cellist friend, I'll call them the Putin issue if I may, are right now a horrible mess. There are a few editors convinced that it is all a conspiracy and wishing to delete all they can re. the Putin issue, and the result at this moment is that the allegations have disappeared and the reactions to them are still there. This is an absurdity, but it is also a product of the way in which the article is organised, as few can get a proper grasp on it all. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I please ask an admin or three to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panama_Papers#Complete_reorganisation_of_the_article_is_required.2C_and_soon, in which I've set out how I think the article should be reorganised and why it needs urgent action. With page views pushing 400,000 yesterday, it is a biggie. Boscaswell talk 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Same issue on Talk:Vladimir Putin#Panama papers, but it seems to be (very slowly) moving forward there.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We are slowly moving towards large-scale edit warring in Vladimir Putin.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of misogyny

    During two separate AfDs, Nfitz (talk · contribs) has accused editors of supporting an official Wikipedia notabilty guideline (WP:NFOOTY) of being misogynists.[217][218] He has been asked to withdraw the personal attack twice,[219][220] but is trying to claim that it is not one.[221] and wikilawyering to claim he has not accused any individual editor.[222]. Could this be dealt with please. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is beyond absurd. I pointed out a policy I believe to be misogynistic - that I too have been supporting in the past. I didn't make any personal attacks - especially as I included myself in the misogynistic practice we need to fix. When User:Number 57 questioned what I'd said, I clearly pointed out to him that I wasn't referring to any individual. It's a shame that some editors are far more interested in choosing to be offended and their constant wiki-lawyering and red-taping rather than improving the project. I'd like User:Number 57 to apologize for his personal attack against me. I'm sorry if User:Number 57 misinterpreted my statement. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was very clear from the original, pointed comments that the attack was aimed at certain editors. If anyone had any illusions as to the meaning, they were followed up with "I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age". The attempt at backpeddalling is not going to fool anyone (I hope). As for the request for an apology... Number 57 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I most certainly did not aim the attack at certain editors. I aimed it at the entire project - myself included. To suggest otherwise is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia - and User:Number 57 needs to apologize for violating WP:AGF. If they were not sure, they could have sought clarification - and I'd already clarified that I had not aimed my comment at any individuals before User:Number 57 came here; by ignoring my clarification that I had not targeted any individuals, has very clearly to violate WP:AGF. Could this be dealt with please? Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You clearly stated in the edits that those who defend the guidelines are misogynists. I understand that in some situations we get a little hot under the collar and sometimes speak/type without thinking things through. But yeah, you did write that. Irrespective of whether or not you actually named anyone you cast a rather unpleasant aspersion on those who disagree with your take on this guideline. At the very least that is a breach of WP:AGF. I suggest that you strike the comment and make an appropriate expression of regret over the unfortunate choice of words. Let's all try to act like adults and not drag this out unnecessarily or make more of it than is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I simply meant that anyone who ignores the WP:BIAS and mysogyny issues would be misogynists. As I'd only just raised them, no one had yet defended the issues I'd raised, there could have been no individual I was referring to. I HAD already clarified that I wasn't targetting an individual with my comments - however User:Number 57 chose to ignore that, and still take offence, where none was meant. Then User:Number 57 chose to violate WP:AGF. This is a far greater transgression in my mind, and User:Number 57 needs to apologize or face the consequences. This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a personal attack and incivil. Nfitz, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It aggregates information from secondary and primary sources and attempts to give them due weight. If those sources are biased, Wikipedia will be as well. Similarly, if a system or institution has systemic bias in its outcomes for something like fame, Wikipedia will reflect that bias as well because notability is based on that systemically biased institution (e.g., Oscars). It's unfortunate, but that's how encyclopedias and tertiary sources like textbooks work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be a personal attack, if I wasn't making a personal attack. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize for wording it badly. I find it quite insulting that other people are telling me what I was saying and thinking, when I clarified my comments BEFORE it came to ANI. As for Wikipedia being Tertiary - we are discussing policy here, not content. Our policy to not allow articles about female players unless their league is fully-professional, knowing full well there isn't the money in the sport to have fully-professional leagues WHEN WE DO ALLOW SEMI-PROFESSIONAL male leagues in standards for other male-dominated leagues (basketball, gridiron, ice hockey) is clear WP:BIAS. If we held the same standards for ANY league of ANY sport, then I'd agree with you. But we don't. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have struck the offending comment, despite making it very clear to User:Number 57 that they weren't aimed at anyone personally. Re-reading them again, it was poorly worded, and I apologize for that. However, as I'd made it very clear that it wasn't personal, before they decided to bring this here, clearly violating WP:AGF and I await their apology for this. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is interesting stuff. Nfitz's apology is very welcome, but their original comments--the content if not the phrasing--is even more welcome. Even The Rambling Man agreed that there was bias in our guidelines. This is an opportunity to do something useful; if any of Nfitz's words crossed the line (and I think it was very mild) I think they speak to the frustration that is frequently felt when an underrepresented group is the subject of discussion.

      The bottomline is this, and Number 57 may not like it: "the guidelines is the guidelines" is not some sort of secret recipe that somehow eliminates bias. In fact, I am pretty damn sure that the guidelines are based on things that are inherently biased (media coverage, for instance; if I read my local paper and nothing but, cycling wouldn't be a sport and soccer was just for girls), like professional leagues and stuff like that (it's the "professional" part: of course women are underpaid, and this finds an expression in what's professional and what's not--just ask the US women's soccer team, with three World Cups and four Olympic titles, IIRC). Number 57 and others should seize this opportunity to investigate how our guidelines might be biased, and editors (including me) sometimes cannot see the beam in their own eyes. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Drmies: Football is a spectator sport, and this is what makes the players notable (with the exception of international footballers, all of whom we deem notable regardless of their professional status). A league's professional status is a direct consequence of the interest in that league, and the status of some leagues as semi-professional is a result of a lack of sufficient interest in those leagues, which is an indicator that the players in those leagues are not notable. Number 57 11:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple, or that "interest" is so easily defined. I think FOOTY needs tweaking and The Rambling Man was right; the highest level in the country should trump the mere "fully professional" requirement. Your response in the Brogan Hay AfD doesn't even regard the GNG which, in my opinion and that of others, is met. (Giant Snowman disagrees, but that's another discussion.) Choosing FOOTY over GNG suggests bias, yes, if FOOTY is biased--which seems to be the opinion of a couple of participants in that AfD. But this is for a different forum than ANI, I realize that. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies: The reason we have avoided going down the top level route for notability is primarily because it would allow articles on thousands of non-notable male players playing in countries where football is not a professional sport (e.g. Ireland and other small countries in Europe). Number 57 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • While the manner in which this issue was raised was a little too gung-ho, I think what has been criticised is really worth looking into. The guideline for fully-professional leagues is helpful in most cases – however with gender as a factor it becomes a bit more difficult to apply as a general rule of interest/notability. Assigning the same criteria to both male and female players doesn’t take into account gender discrimination – as User:Drmies mentioned, women are in many cases are simply paid less; this doesn’t necessarily correlate with less interest for the sport. The pitfalls of amending notability criteria are clear, yet I think there may be ways to side-step potential problems. Perhaps for countries where there is notable football enthusiasm (where the men's league(s) are fully-professional) there could be criteria to allow for the top-tier women's league - This could aid in avoiding the problem User:Number 57 raised regarding non-notable male players. In any case, it would be good to start a constructive debate on this issue and discuss possible amendments. BoroFan89 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • The level of interest in the sport in terms of playing is not relevant; the level of interest in terms of it being a spectator sport (which is what makes players notable) is. What you seem to be suggesting is that Wikipedia adopts some form of positive discrimination. Number 57 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm a bit confused by what you're saying - I never linked the level of interest with playing? I do believe that semi-pro women's football cannot be compared with semi-pro men's football - due to the reasons given above, and the notability criteria should consider this. BoroFan89 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this is a good opportunity to fix WP:NFOOTY to make sure it's written in a way that does not discriminate against women in football. See Wikipedia:Writing about women:

    Women comprise between 8.5 and 16.1 percent of editors on the English Wikipedia.[1] This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies in turn determine which articles about women can be hosted, and frame many of the ways in which they are written.

    LauraHale has worked hard to promote women in sport. She hasn't edited here since January, but I'm pinging her anyway in case she has thoughts about how to change the guideline. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY), we allow "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant." That's the situation with Brogan Hay. As I understand it, she's playing at the highest level at which she can play in Scotland, but there is no professional level for women there. So we ought to add that caveat to WP:NFOOTY. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlimVirgin: My question would be how would this be applied across football in general? I presume you are not suggesting creating a bias towards women's articles by imposing a lower level of notability based solely on gender? Are you suggesting that NFOOTY be amended to state that all players in a given country's top league are presumed notable?
    The problem with that would be the vast number of non-notable male footballers who would suddenly fit this criterion, not to mention non-notable female footballers, all of whom play in very minor leagues which attract very little attention.
    If the desire is to see more articles on women, then I would suggest editors start on the large number of missing articles for women who have played senior international football, who pass NFOOTY as is but do currently have an article and thereby begin to solve this problem top down not bottom up. And let's not get started on the poor state of articles on women's football clubs, national teams and competitions.
    If the desire is to see more articles on women in a given league, i.e. Scotland in this instance, surely GNG is the best root to follow. Again this solves the problem from a top down pov by ensuring that articles are created on the most notable female footballers first before there is any need to alter a subject specific guideline.
    I am more than happy to get in a discussion on how to make football articles more inclusive, but I am adamant that any changes made must be applicable to all footballers, not simply female footballers and that the risk of a flood of hitherto non-notable players of either gender may suddenly appear.
    However, I would be interested to see, particularly if a wider audience beyond the usual WP:FOOTY editors can be engaged, if a consensus can be reached that players from a country's top division are deemed notable regardless of gender. That somewhat blunt approach seems to me to be the only way to resolve this issue in a way that provides clarity on notability to even the most inexperienced of editors and allows the inclusion of more articles on female footballers without creating a positive bias. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Fenix, I'm not sure what you mean by applying any new suggestion across football in general. My suggestion is that WP:NFOOTY follow WP:NHOCKEY, and add a clause that says something like:
    "Played one or more games in an amateur league that is the highest level of competition available because of the lack of a professional league."
    Alternatively, NFOOTY could follow WP:NRU (for Rugby Union), which cites women, and say something like:
    "Or has played one or more games at the highest level of competition available in women's football in her country."
    SarahSV (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see other sections on that page cite women; e.g. WP:NBASKETBALL (though the Women's National Basketball Association is professional); WP:NBOX (mentions women and amateur boxers); and WP:NCYCLING. It should be easy enough to add a sentence to NFOOTY that accommodates what happens in the women's game. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlimVirgin: Firstly, I think it should be pointed out that we do not allow male players articles in cases where the top divisions in their countries are semi-pro or amateur and dozens of articles on such players are deleted every year without any such uproar. Secondly, what needs considering here is what makes footballers notable. Our guidelines give two methods for footballers to gain assumed notability; the first is common to most sports, i.e. representing their country (playing international football). The second is related to football's status as a spectator sport – and this is something that not all sports get, as if there is not much interest in many sport from a spectator point of view, this in turn means the players are not deemed notable. However, obviously not all footballers are notable, as not all footballers play in leagues where there is sufficient spectator interest (I myself have played in a league where we used to get 10-20 people watching our games). So, we have to determine which leagues do make their players notable by virtue of playing in them. The best indicator of whether there is interest in a league in terms of it being a spectator sport is professional status; if a league cannot attract sufficient crowds or sponsorship, then this suggests there is not that much interest in it, and subsequently, that the players are not notable. Being a top division does not automatically make a league's players notable if there is little interest in that league in the country in question, and this rule is applied equally to both men's and women's football. If we had separate rules for men's and women's football, this would effectively be positive discrimination, which I would hope we all agree that this is not what Wikipedia is for.
    Also, and I'm sure this was not your intention, citing the rugby union example is not really a good idea because I would say it is actually quite biased against women. WP:NRU allows an article on any male player to play in the world cup, but a female player has to be in a team that reaches the semi finals to qualify. Number 57 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been involved with Nfitz over AfD discussions on football-related articles, especially on players from Myanmar, and we were frustrated that though we knew that many of these players were playing in their country's top league, due to the lack of reliable sources (owing to simply the lack of documented media coverage of football events in Myanmar. Just google..) we were unable to prove their notability as per NFOOTY, which resulted in the deletion of some of the articles.

    Now, to my point: I think that Nfitz made an error in his original statements, which were the original subject of this discussion; what Nfitz essentially said in his original comments (which were linked by Number 57 and I'm not going to re-quote them) is basically: "If you support the policy, you are a misogynist, if you do not support the policy, you are not a misogynist". This is clearly a false dichotomy as effectively, it means that if I happen to support the policy, that makes me invariably a misogynist, and you can only be one or the other. That's not true of course, as just because I support the policy, it doesn't automatically make me a misogynist.

    I assume that because of this error, that Nfitz is seen by extension to be calling people misogynists if they happened to support the policy, but here's the thing: he is not calling anyone misogynists in particular; by Nfitz making his statement verbatim, there is an element of if - "If you support, you will be...; if you do not support, you will be...". On that note, I do not believe that Nfitz has not made any personal attack on any particular individual or groups of individuals. Granted that his comments were insensitive and logically incorrect in the sense that he was trying to make others invariably make one choice over the other (false dichotomy), but other than these, I don't see any other wrong in his comments.

    I'm not sure if it would help this discussion, but I'll state it anyway as a reminder to all of us, especially since Nfitz rightly said that we should be concerned with improving Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not censored. Oh and as a side point, I doubt Nfitz violated WP:NPOV, considering he was highlighting a fundamental flaw in policy, one which unfortunately has a gender element to it. Just stating it too, if it pops up in this discussion. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as yet another side point, I don't think Number 57 should be required to apologise either; to me this entire discussion has been a whole big misunderstanding of both sides since the beginning. I also want to praise Drmies for coming into this discussion with a voice of reason that spanned both sides. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr

    Dicklyon has removed commas from titles without consensus case-by-case, like Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. Also, he misinterprets WP:JR as a no-comma rule for Jr./Sr. I don't think WP:3RRN would help much. Also, he posted a message and accused me of being disruptive. I can't handle his antics anymore. Time for administrative action. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Antics"? There has been broad support for WP:JR since the recent RFC. If you believe that Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. calls for a comma, please just say why. What have I done to stress you out so? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion was about MOS and usage of content in text. It may not have extended to article titles. Also, I did not know about the RfC, and I was not told about it. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, George. Now you know. I had some time today, and removed a lot of un-preferred commas. Please do let me know if you see any case where there's a reason to put them back. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, look at the edits, especially on Cuba Gooding, Jr. How is the rule extended to article titles is beyond me. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as you claim, WP:JR does not apply to article titles, how do you explain the fact that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies specifically mentions how to handle article titles in four places? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Other parts have to do with how to introduce a person. Also, it's content-based, not title-based. As for commonality, MOS:BIO mentions it briefly without detailing it too much. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we start with you taking a clear content dispute to ANI after less than an hour and a half / 3 total comments on the article talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It also looks like there's ongoing discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding how to implement the "Jr." RfC. I think this discussion might work better in the scope of that one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, due to below comment, I'm afraid closing it would premature at this time. Let's see how it goes... George Ho (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas. Strictly speaking, the page moves are unnecessary. This isyet another instance of wishy-washy language in the MOS causing grief. It should be consistent one way or the other and hopefully the aforementioned discussion on WT:MOSBIO provides a clear way forward. clpo13(talk) 06:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you 100%, but ANI is not the place to discuss that. ANI is where we discuss blocks and bans of disruptive users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Dicklyon not a disruptive type? George Ho (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially when he removes the comma during the RM? George Ho (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only RM I can see is one you opened, to an undetermined future title. If you don't know what the title should be, you can't criticize other users for presenting there proposals and being WP:BOLD. Also, I had no idea there was an RM open because you never mentioned it. Now do you want that trout or not? I strongly urge you to accept the former... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this RM? And past requests and one of my reverts, whilst RM discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. was ongoing? George Ho (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I notice that the comma was removed from "Robert Downey, Jr." when the RM four years ago said to retain the comma and no further discussions were made in the talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those RMs are currently open, and two are over a year old! Are you saying User:Philg88 should be blocked for something he did more than a year ago? You appear to be saying that you want to have a general discussion of our style guidelines on ANI? Or are you blaming Dicklyon for a whole bunch of stuff they had nothing to do with? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What? No, I'm not pinning on Phil. It's Dicklyon's disregard for case-by-case strategy and generalization on other things. If you think I'm out of control, be my guest. And how dare you propose a block on me after I tried to address a user conduct. Giving me a "boomerang", which I don't know what it means until you try to propose a block on me. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want my propose on Dicklyon, maybe an admonishment perhaps? If that's not enough, how about warning? Or encourage Dicklyon to propose instead of boldly moving on all commas? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and you don't know how ANI works? Maybe you shouldn't have come here, then. I offered you the easy way out of being hit with a trout and closing this thread, and you refused. Twice. I explicitly told you you would be hit with a boomerang if you persisted, and I linked to the page for you to read it. The potentially-disruptive unilateral move in the middle of an RM from over a year ago to which you referred above was made by Philg88 and had nothing to do with Dicklyon as far as I can see. I don't think either should face sanctions for what looks like a good faith misunderstanding from over a year ago. You, on the other hand, appear to be deliberately forum-shopping your content dispute to ANI, and trying to antagonize anyone who calls you out on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm too late to let you close the thread, that's fine by me. If you want to close it, go ahead. But I'll be back if the empire strikes back. I swear to you. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rescinding my latest comment due to unanimous opposition below. If it's not too late, close it if you want. Otherwise, let's hear admins' comments then. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? If you believe that this ANI is in bad faith, propose an admonishment or a warning on me if you can. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to be antagonistic? I withdrew my boomerang proposal seven hours before you posted the above, and had refrained from further comment in this thread. The "unanimous opposition" was entirely based on philosophical differences over what constitutes a "preventative" block, and I had better things to do with my time than comb through your edit history to see if you abusing ANI was already a recurring problem. Everyone was and still is in agreement that you are being disruptive and are misusing ANI. The "unanimous opposition" was also unanimous that you should be hit with some sort of boomerang or at least a trout. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one is behind me, then... please don't trout me. I don't like being trout-ed. I was trouted once; twice is too much. I don't know if I want to back off or make the thread active. I hate that I'm the enemy here; I don't want to be "antagonistic". If I allow bold removals of commas, then what are we going to do with academics outside Wikipedia who still encourage commas before Sr./Jr.? Also, what about academics encouraging the periods after Jr/Sr? --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a WP:BOOMERANG an ANI-misuse admin warning of some kind (not a block, per below discussion) is in order, perhaps a short-term topic ban. Ho may well have been unaware of the RfC but that doesn't mitigate anything, including his vague aspersion-casting that Lyon is "a disruptive type", etc. It's totally inappropriate to drag someone to WP:ANI for alleged linguistic battlegrounding (actually, routine cleanup) when one's own intent is in fact to perpetuate linguistic battlegrounding. It's vexatious, litigious, unclean-hands, and a misuse of ANI to try to WP:WIN a content dispute. Lyon using normal WP:RM processes – slow or speedy – to comply with guideline wording, in an evidence-backed manner, is not problematic. What is problematic is the never-give-up attitude of a couple of editors who are big fans of this comma despite all evidence that usage has shifted over the last two decades (across all dialects and registers) and who go from RM to RM opposing its removal, recycling, in WP:NOTGETTINGIT style, the same bogus arguments in every case no matter how many times they are refuted. This is tendentious activity and needs to stop.

      George Ho in particular has been remarkably WP:DEADHORSE, at both RM discussions and MoS talk pages, about a number of linguistic matters he simply does not understand and refuses to believe enormous piles of evidence about, like the difference between "as" or "like" when used as a preposition versus as a conjunction. It took me many hours of sourcing to get him to even back slightly away from that carcass (thought fortunately the work can be used to improve some articles on English usage).
      PS: comments like "WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas" are meaningless; all of MOS and our naming conventions pages are just guidelines and do not "mandate" anything. We comply with them as guidelines absent a compelling reason not to in a particular case. And, yes, this is not the place to try to make one.
       — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: Which is part of the problem. So long as MOS pages remain "just guidelines", we end up with pointless arguments like this. The wording should be stronger. And next time, would you be so kind as to ping me when you talk about me? clpo13(talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. George Ho's above ex post facto comments on my failed boomerang proposal indicate that he just doesn't get it -- he seems to actually think a lot of users came to his defense in the belief that this discussion does belong on ANI and I was totally wrong on the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the objections were to using a block punitively rather than preventatively, i.e. they were procedural not content- or behavior-related objections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bogus? SMcCandlish, my arguments aren't bogus. Give one example that my arguments are bogus. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just proving Hijiri88's point. This is not the forum for an argument about grammar/style and the bogosity of your beliefs about that topic. And "Give one example that my arguments are bogus" doesn't even parse as a proper sentence, which rather proves the other point. So does the whole square mile of sources I dumped on the like/as matter at WT:MOSCAPS, now in Archive 21, at multiple RMs, and developed in hairy detail at User:SMcCandlish/sourcing/Capitalization in English. Anyone who cares about the actual content dispute will find everything they could want in there. Be careful what you wish for.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rescinding my t-ban suggestion. In re-reviewing Ho's involvement in these topics, while there is a level of tendentiousness, he's actually usually more civil than the "style warriors" we keep having to deal with periodically. This seems to have been a momentary lapse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After reading, above, I have to say I agree with the comment in this sect by Tony1 (talk · contribs). I'd encourage the filer of this ANI thread to familiarize themselves with RFC reflecting community consensus, existing site policy, and then discuss in a civil manner on relevant article talk pages about the issue, keeping in mind pages already cited to him, above. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG for George Ho - block for 24 hours

    Withdrawn by requestor

    George Ho (talk · contribs) has been given ample opportunity to withdraw this silly request for sanctions over a content dispute that apparently had only started before he decided to escalate it to ANI, and has refused. His most recent comments, immediately above, indicate that he does not have any solid proposal for admin intervention, and just wants to have a general discussion of Wikipedia's style guidelines, which is not what ANI is for. I say issue a short block and tell him that this kind of escalation is disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I guess I was the one hit with a trout in this case.（笑） Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Personally I prefer the no-comma style, but regardless of the underlying merits, in the War of the Comma Crazies no less than in the Middle East, it's critical that a balance of power be maintained lest any one party become unfettered to spread perverse punctuation preoccupation to further parts of the Wikiglobe. A block of anyone might upset this delicate balance. EEng 11:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @OpenFuture: Per SNOW, I'm not going to attempt to defend my proposal and overturn all of the oppose !votes, but if you read the discussion above it's pretty clear that, even after several users telling him, George Ho didn't accept that he was misusing ANI. A short block would tell him definitively that what he did was wrong and discourage repeat offense, something that's highly likely if he doesn't recognize that what he did was not acceptable. I even specifically told GH that what he was doing was disruptive and he should take it back, and he refused to listen -- twice. It would also allow this thread to be closed and for the comma warriors to go back to solving their content dispute (although one of them would have to wait 24 hours). So my rationale was preventative, even if the rest of you don't agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless he has a history of misusing AN/I you can't reasonably call it preventative. Sure, he might do it again, but innocent until proven guilty... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose vehemently What is this block supposed to achieve? Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, and finding consensus is the way forward. This block would be purely punitive, and would have zilch effect. Either stay away from each other, or hash it out without getting too stubborn. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The comma wars are, in my opinion, one of the most lame long term wars at Wikipedia. I suppose it would make too much sense to solve the whole thing like we did ENGVAR - leave it as it was first done and keep it consistent within articles. It is unlikely our readers give even a tiny fraction of a damn about this when they come to look something up. That said George Ho is a prolific and good faith editor and a block is not warranted. Even if an argument could be made this ANI filing is inappropriate (no opinion on that) this call for a BOOMERANG is more so. JbhTalk 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. As OpenFuture has said, blocks are preventative not punitive. This is a punitive measure. On a side note, the comma wars looks to be the next in line after the emdash war, the diacritic war, the engvar war...
    Who posted this? I felt sure that with so many ANI posters opposed to my proposal, at least one must have been make dickish ad hominem attacks against the messenger, so even after withdrawing I was reading these !votes. I was happy -- and frankly quite surprised -- to see not a single DICK comment, but reading the above I sensed a kindred spirit in someone who recognizes the diacritic war as something in the past (Ctrl+F this page right now for "diacritic" to see why I was happy with this), and I would like to barnstar, or at least thank, whoever wrote it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was User:Blackmane...Lectonar (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Indeed it was. Forgot to sign, thanks @Lectonar:. Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor not playing ball by insisting on controversial renaming without using WP:REQMOVE

    User User:Wiki-psyc renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries without any discussion and without using WP:REQMOVE. I reverted it explaining that it was controversial and if User:Wiki-psyc wanted to pursue it please use WP:REQMOVE. Now User:Wiki-psyc has reverted my revert without bothering with WP:REQMOVE aqain.--Penbat (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The first article name change does not appear to be controversial - it occurred 7 months ago and despite being an active article, there is nothing in the edit notes or TALK PAGE to suggest any controversy or disagreement until yesterday.
    Penbat suggested a name change yesterday on the TALK PAGE and he implemented the change 5 hours after the change was contested and became controversial. I reverted the name change pending consensus.
    Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wiki-psycs point is irrelevant. There was absolutely no discussion before the move on the talk page and no WP:REQMOVE - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&diff=677100382&oldid=677070465 although he did post this on the talk page 1 hour 21 minutes afterwards - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387 --Penbat (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did a major rewrite and documented the workback in 2015 so that other editors could follow. Why are we here? What are you asking for?
    Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have move protected the article for some time. As the first move was carried out nearly a year ago, and a lot of work has been done of the article content since then, I do not regard this as move warring by Wiki-psyc. However now is the time to stop moving and get consensus on the most appropriate title. I suggest using the WP:RM process. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RM is all I want but it seems unreasonable that I have to initiate the WP:RM, not User:Wiki-psyc, and have to make the case to go back to the status quo when there was no discussion or WP:RM before the first rename on 21 August 2015. I am not sure why time is a factor. Substantive changes were made by User:Wiki-psyc just before the rename as part of a package, briefly documented after the event here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387. I was never happy with the original rename but have only recently taken issue with it as I have just got round to looking into it in depth. Just because I have not intervened earlier did not mean that I approved - it was presented as a fait accompli. Changes in the article since then have not been particularly substantive but anyway I fail to see why it is relevant to the naming of the article. The basic character of the article has not changed significantly since then. No other editor has expressly supported User:Wiki-psyc's edits or the rename. Edits by other editors have been relatively minor.--Penbat (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Had you reverted the name change after it was originally moved last year, I am sure Wiki-psyc would have been happy to go through a WP:RM. However since it has stood with no contest for months, the status quo has changed. It doesnt matter that no one has expressly supported it, no one has opposed it for months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Agree with the move protect admin action by MSGJ (talk · contribs). At this point in time, unfortunately with regards to all that has already transpired, it's somewhat irrelevant what happened in the past. Users should discuss and neutrally and in a civil manner make their case on the talk page with the WP:REQMOVE process, and hope for additional input from previously-uninvolved-participants to arrive at the discussion. — Cirt (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for help establishing neutrality Like this ANI, the WP:RM has become personally disparaging rather than a simple consensus discussion. This is the second time I have been brought before and ANI for unknowingly editing an article that was originated by Penbat. I'm not going to engage the accusations in the WP:RM. I do ask that this matter be reviewed for possible intervention.
    Current WP:RM
    Prior ANI for editing a Penbat originated article titled Exaggeration
    Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk page spamming at FLC

    Key issue here: Violation of WP:CANVASSING and specifically, WP:VOTESTACK.

    I'm quite concerned about User talk page spamming at FLC for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mohanlal filmography/archive1 by FLC nominator Inside the Valley (talk · contribs).

    FLC started at 15:50, 3 March 2016. Immediately after that, Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) spammed user talk pages of no less than at least eighteen (18) users.

    The user Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) response is to deny this is spamming: "Spamming is subjective, hence spam messages are different for each user. If my message regarding the FLC was an unwanted subject. Then it is definitely a spam. You can always ignore or delete it and warn me. But I don't think I have "spammed" every user talk pages I messaged."

    Relevant DIFFs, below:

    1. User talk:Skr15081997
    2. User talk:Cirt
    3. User talk:ChrisTheDude
    4. User talk:Krish!
    5. User talk:Ruby2010
    6. User talk:Krimuk90
    7. User talk:IndianBio
    8. User talk:SNUGGUMS
    9. User talk:Famous Hobo
    10. User talk:Rschen7754
    11. User talk:MPJ-DK
    12. User talk:LavaBaron
    13. User talk:Dough4872
    14. User talk:Bharatiya29
    15. User talk:Yashthepunisher
    16. User talk:Jakec
    17. User talk:NapHit
    18. User talk:Vensatry

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    * Not spamming or votestacking, that message was neutrally worded, which is key for something to be called Canvassing. KoshVorlon 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, sending a message to people who've never had something to do with the topic is essentially spamming (falls within canvassing) which I presume is the problem. Also, Cirt claims votestacking which means informing editors who have a predetermined POV about the topic (which again falls within canvassing). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 4 types of inappropriate canvassing:
    • Stealth - The use of secret canvassing, which is not being done
    • Spamming - A message sent out to a very large audience individually, which has not been done (I consider 10-15 to be a limited set)
    • Campaigning - A message that is intended to get the audience to vote a certain way. I believe the message is appropriately nuetral.
    • Votestacking - Sending a message out to an audience believed to be supportive. This is where a wrong may have occured.
    The question is where did Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) get the list that they chose to send their message out to. I checked the WikiProject page Japan, and I don't see all of these members on these. I also checked the contributors to the article and not all of these members are there. So, the answer we need from Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) is, why did they chose to contact this set of people?--v/r - TP 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The last kind of canvassing is the type that we at FLC would be concerned about. I must confess that I feel a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who has to make the decision whether to notify other users of an FAC or FLC. Anyone who pays attention to our content processes knows that many reviews are archived because they fail to attract enough attention (we could always use more, BTW), and even many of our finest content producers will notify peer reviewers and trustworthy editors of a new review. The line between drawing the attention of good reviewers and attempting to stack votes is very thin, but I'd say informing 18 different people of a review is way above and beyond what any review needs. As for why they chose these people, I don't know. To single out one editor's view, Vensatry has criticized possible canvassing in the past. Maybe they are users who have supported previous FLCs they have started, but you'd have to check his previously promoted FLCs to know for sure. Also, the user identifies as Indian and the list involves an Indian subject, so that WikiProject may be more relevant than the Japanese one. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add to TParis's list, "spamming" and "votestacking" don't have to involve a message being sent, but can also, at least in theory, consist of pinging a large number of users or a potentially sympathetic audience of users. (I don't know if pinging users in a non-neutral message would qualify as "campaigning", though.) This didn't happen here, but I'm a bit of a pedant, and felt the need to conclude TParis's point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've seen people accused of canvassing because they pinged like 10 admins in one thread, requesting them to take a look because the thread is stagnant. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, obviously I don't consider all pinging to constitute canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous disruptive editing by Shhhhwwww!! even after third block

    I'm here to file a case on User:Shhhhwwww!!, this user has make a persistent disruptive editing since his recent release of block in early April. Since 2013, this user was detected making nonsense contribution like [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228] and making disruptive page moves without any discussion first which resulted he was blocked for third time (see his block log). The user also makes content removal without starting a discussion first/reaching a consensus like this, this and labelling anyone who revert his edits as breaching the WP:3RR while still not reaching it as can be seen on here and here. Recently, when he get his third block was expired, he continue to invade Sabah article by starting a discussion with a title "Sabah is racist" [229] and adding the article as part of WikiProject Philippines while it is not a Philippine territory [230], [231]. The same goes to Miangas article [232], [233] which is an Indonesian territory. The user have been warned for his disruptive editing who frequently makes flooding request for comment [234] thus controversially removing his comment from the Miangas talkpage which affecting the recent discussion there [235]. The same can be seen on here and here although the discussion can be discussed in one place without flooding every related topics. The user tactics also usually will retired when someone launched an investigation into his behaviour such as can be seen on this, this, this and this and remove it back when the investigation is over. He also restoring other user comment who have rectract his word [236]. As been reported by other users (which can be seen on here (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shhhhwwww!!/Archive#14 October 2015). When another user User:HistoriaFilipinas create the North Borneo, Philippines article, he re-create it by stating an edit summary (to prevent re-creation). This is quite amusing. Someone should take an action to this user which day by day getting worse even after had been blocked and repeatedly warned as seen on his talkpage. I have filed this case on administrator intervention against vandalism and they told me to report it here. Thank you. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shhhhwwww!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Molecule Extraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are two POV warriors who fight on various pages, so this is a content dispute between two editors who both are prone to violating policy. I warned them both this morning. I did not warn Molecule Extraction about WP:FORUMSHOPPING but please regard this as such a warning. Stop disrupting and start discussing this in a constructive manner. And that goes for both of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm understand and accept your warning. I'm here to just reporting the behaviour of Shhhhwwww!! since 2013 as had been reported by other previous users (senior) than me so any administrators can take a look on this long-term issues. I'm ready to take up any responsibility and mistake If I had done to this projects especially when I had make a talkpage war or edit war with the user. But the only thing I hope is there should be any final decision on this. Molecule Extraction (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Worry about yourself instead of Shhhhwwww!! --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Molecule Extraction, you also failed to alert Shhhhwwww!! that you have reported him; so he probably does not even know that he is being discussed. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks for putting it. I forgot. Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to be patient with this user and discuss the issues in a more mature manner but the constant Wikihounding, Harrassment, and Personal attacks just get to the nerves. Sometimes enough is enough. Harkening back to edits made three years ago, threats of blocking, overusing arguments are just bad faith. I tried to have a truce to no avail. I tried responding with one-word responses, the attacks continued. I have already backed away when OpenFuture told us to stop. This is unfair. I have already been harrassed a day ago with reporting to the vandalism noticeboard and I was cleared thrice. I am really unhappy right now.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have indeed tried everything, except following the WP:Five pillars. You have created a whole host of frivolous RfC's you have even made a completely frivolous arbitration request, you have thrown out endless personal attacks, you have editwarred, etc. Don't try to make yourself out to be a victim. Neither of you are victims, the only victim is Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't this user retire after the last time they were being disruptive? Now looking to escape a long block by going on vacation. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 50 times... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Timing is so often the most important element of a holiday Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am willing to have a more meanigful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing. I will still be on Wikibreak for a while to cool my head and calm my nerves. I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'I am willing to have a more meaningful discussion with this user and avoid any disruptive editing'. Hah, the tactics always like that by claiming himself as 'innocence' and then "retire" before being blocked. After your recent block, you however continue to remove a template from the Jamalul Kiram III before starting any discussion and reaching a consensus [237]. I have asking him repeatedly to give a WP:RS from the PH government (be it from PDF documents or from the government press release agencies [238], [239]) that recognise Kiram III or Ismael Kiram II and Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram as the official Sultan for the so-called Sultanate of Sulu (that been recognise until this day by his country peoples) but instead he gave me a link to a newspaper of Philippines Vice-President Jejomar Binay claim to Sabah as can be seen on our discussion in Jamalul Kiram III talkpage. Then on the Sabah article, Shhhhwwww!! keep stressing that WikiProject Philippines must be included [240], [241] on the article talkpage although OpenFuture has told to stop and giving a suggestion to maintain a balance views on the article content. Is that you called 'to avoid disruptive editing'?? An experience Filipino editor RioHondo also has said that there is no need for a WikiProject Philippines to be included on a article that even are not under the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The disruption was also seen on a Indonesian island article, the Miangas talkpage [242], [243]. Clearly that there is some "irredentism" feeling here. While at the same time, you have controversially removing the question header which have affecting the discussion [244]. Is that are not disruptive? You also said 'I am also going to try to avoid these topics in the near future'. I have asking you here if your really want to change your behaviour but instead you leave my question unanswered. Is that how we can trust you easily, after repeated warnings and block but still back to old behaviour?? Molecule Extraction (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a mess This thread was opened about twenty hours ago by Molecule Extraction, and has received 12 independent comments including ME's OP comment, but somehow has been edited 48 times!? This is some Special:Contributions/LittleBenW shit, and almost all of it appears to be the fault of the OP. On top of that, he/she seems to be under the impression that Shhhhwwww having a block log means all disruptive editing must be the latter's fault, but all of Shhhhwwww's blocks appear to be about a string of unilateral page moves, and my (admittedly brief) examination of their contribs didn't indicate any continuation of this particular activity following the most recent block. While I don't doubt that both editors are being disruptive, I don't think Shhhhwwww should be blocked again if Molecule Extraction comes out of this unscathed, as Molecule Extraction appears to me to be engaging in disruption on this very forum. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed this (sorry -- wasn't reading very closely). Block Shhhhwwww for three months and see if he comes back and causes still more trouble. Molecule Extraction has a clean block record, so one week should be enough to warn them that this isn't appropriate behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a week is a bit on the heavy side for Molecule Extraction. I've been looking at the articles to see who added all the shit I now have to clean away, and it wasn't him. He just escalated the conflict instead of handling it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Muffin Wizard and User:Molecule Extraction have identical edit patterns. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and now you are accusing me to be a sockpuppet. What a lame excuse. Molecule Extraction (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Creepy canvassing right here. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus Toji

    After someone put the {{unreliable sources}} template at the top of Marcus Toji, I simply requested that {{bcn}} be placed on the specific sources that are not suitable, as having the general tag at the top of the article does little good. This was responded to with a block warning. Placing this tag on the article for a third time violates WP:BRD, and I do not wish to violate WP:3RR. What are the next steps? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have informed the editor that you are discussing him here, as required. In any case, you're both edit-warring over a tag. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As did I around the same time. I signed mine tho! SQLQuery me! 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Great minds think alike that was deliberate, so he didn't think it was me reporting him. Thanks though! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:The Parlotones

    I keep placing {{outdated}} or {{incomplete}} at Template:The Parlotones, but it keeps getting reverted. Per WP:OUTDATED, "If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section". Many sarcastic comments in violation of WP:CIVIL have been made there as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit summary was quite uncivil. This edit summary wasn't very nice, either. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: you seem exasperated by the edit war, but I would suggest you be more civil in your edit summaries. If there are simply three albums missing from the template, I can add them myself. Will that stop the edit warring? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather have Jax 0677 learn to be an editor that helps readers rather than placing tags on articles and templates when he knows what needs to be to done to fix them and that will only confuse and exasperate readers. Look at all the steps he is taking rather doing the simplest of things. He admits to being lazy in his defense above, although he does so by referencing an essay regarding arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Could I have done it, too? Sure. But that won't stop a lazy editor from continuing to be lazy. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - There are even more comments at Template talk:The Parlotones, which along with the page history, may be reviewed for violation of WP:IMPERSONATE. Despite the fact that I used {{outdated}} or {{incomplete}} for their intended purpose, the edit summaries and comments on the talk page still are in violation of WP:CIVIL. If an album/song is released after I created the navbox, I am not necessarily responsible for adding those new articles. Additionally, the discography article is still missing from the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Jax means this edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of lawsuit controversy, addition of puffery at Marcus & Millichap

    On Marcus & Millichap, several IP users have been persistently removing a "Lawsuit controversy" section and adding puffery. When removing the Lawsuit controversy section, the edit summary usually claims that it's "out of context". However, to my eyes, the section is pretty well balanced, and even incorporates a quote from the company's response.

    Of particular note, the IP 107.1.246.134 is the most active one of these editors. It's worth noting that the IP is connected to a Comcast Business account in the same region where Marcus & Millichap is headquartered, and has never made edits to any page but this article. They add lots of puffery and have participated in the repeated removal of the lawsuit section.

    I have tried reaching out to these editors on the article's talk page and on their talk pages, but they never respond to me, and just keep making the same changes with the same edit summaries. Thus, I'm bringing this to AN/I. I think 107.1.246.134 should probably be blocked, and the page should probably have pending changes or semi-protection turned on. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlene McMann

    A person purported to be Ms. McMann left a lengthy message on my talk page. She took issue with a citation I added yesterday, and upon investigating further, I agree with her contention and removed the citation. However, she is also making legal threats against me and Wikipedia. This was the same tactic used in March in an attempt to remove the article from Wikipedia because she felt the conviction was unfair, despite pleading guilty to it. To the extent that herself and others who have engaged in sock to remove the article, or blanking on the citation, I seek administrator guidance on this matter.--Cahk (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In the meanwhile, I blocked the Ip for 1 year for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for a Ban

    The human behind this IP, who seems to be Charlene McMann, has been causing so much disruption about the article on that person, and is now trying to exercise a chilling effect, that I recommend a Site Ban on a person who is not a registered user, but is the person behind the IP, so that IP should be indefinitely blocked. (The IP appears to be static over at least six weeks, which is longer than most.) I realize that others will disagree with a formal ban for a person who is editing via IPs, but this is my opinion. I suggest that editors who disagree recommend an indef or a long block, or to disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Evidence suggests they'll just come back with a new IP and do the same again. So only option is to siteban them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, along with her husband and his sock drawer. I have nominated the article for AfD - though refactoring as an article about the defunct charity she scammed might be better. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - They'd only be back under a new one and then a new one etc etc so ban the lot of 'em, Maybe the article should be kept so we can show the encyclopedia how pathetic and sad some people are. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and I think if we end up blocking them past this point to both leave a message to only contact Foundation council and let the Foundation know. Censorious thuggery tends to stand mute in the midst of lawyering up; it's the same principle patent trolling works on. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am okay if the community consensus is to remove the article. However, it is clear either the subject, or someone related to the subject is actively attempting to damage control stemming from the court processes. As noted in the 2nd AfD process and the comments here - it appears someone related to the subject created the article in the first place to promote her work, and now that negative information is out, they want the article taken down. The only (more neutral) solution appears to be a ban.--Cahk (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support Per Joseph2302 Jdcomix (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support I created the 2nd AFD on the article, namely on the fact that I felt that the subject was not notable enough for inclusion, and agree with Guy that the information on the page could be turned into a page about the charity. The constant legal threats and attempted Wiki-lawyering is enough for me to support a ban on the IP and its socks (including the subject's husband). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Update Upon seeing this: [245], this only furthers my support for a ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As only indication from this we have is that the person has no interest in anything but threatening the project and its editors. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the IP did not make a legal threat, IPs are just numbers. The person behind the IP made the threat, and that person is de facto banned anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't often vote for such comprehensive bans but this is not your typical case of a wayward editor. McMann contributed to her own biographical article but once documented information about a criminal conviction was included in the article, one that she pleaded guilty to, she wanted the article removed. She even claimed to be a friend of McMann who said the article was causing her friend to become suicidal and initially a lot of editors were extremely sympathetic until they realized it was likely McMann herself who was posting. Now, with the threats, I agree that she should be kept from editing on the project. Whether or not the article is kept or rewritten is another matter but McMann should not be threatening or trying to make editors feel guilt that they are responsible if her health worsens. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who are not familiar with incidents in March, I'll link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing/Archive for further reading. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the reasons stated. User seems to be willing to keep coming back until they get what they want, which is disruptive. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Support per Liz. This is a SNOW and is just awaiting closing and enactment. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for all the above reasons. It is most unfortunate that Ms. McMann chose to commit a series felonious actions which have been more than satisfactorily cited in the media IMO. The first AfD way back when ought to have ended it. I would think the subject cannot be less notable since her arrest, conviction and sentencing. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership of Mann Mayal

    Greetings
    I have a problem regarding Nauriya. The user doesn't lets me edit the article Mann Mayal which he has created. Initially I ignored this but later when I edited the article again he reverted my edits again. I restored my edits and asked him to do a discussion on the talk page and he started a conversation but after putting the message on talk page he reverted my edit again. As I said, I requested the user to stop but he didn't. The user added a genre 'serial drama' to this television article and I can't understand which type of genre is it. I wanted to remove it but the creator Nauriya is against me. My many other edits that were not Vandalism were also removed from the article by the creator of the article. Now this is ownership of article.--Musa Talk  17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    While Nauriya is a major editor of that article, they are not reverting everyone's contributions. I encourage you to participate in the discussion they started at Talk:Mann Mayal. Discussing a difference of opinion to come to some agreement or understanding is preferable to a block and should happen before a complaint is filed at ANI. You also haven't presented much evidence to support your request. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I'm here because of unacceptable behaviour of the user. Currently there are three genres in Mann Mayal, 'Romance', 'Serial Drama' and 'Family Drama'. Now which kind of genre is 'Serial Drama'? There is no source which says that 'Serial Drama' is genre of this show. I changed it to romance-drama but the user removed it. And the genre 'Family Drama' should be written as 'Family'. But according to the creator Serial Drama, Family Drama and Romance are correct genres. Why DRAMA is written twice? The article contains wrong content which should be removed. I removed it and asked the user to refrain from reverting my edits (See talk pages) and start a discussion. He started a discussion but removed my edits again and said don't revert until issue is resolved which I told him first. Please remove the wrong content from the article. And I also made some changes in the style of Mann Mayal but that changes were also removed because they were unconstructive. I just changed the style the content was written by the user itself. This is disruptive behaviour.--Musa Talk  14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Musa, did you read what I wrote? Decisions about the content of articles is not determined at ANI. Unless it turns into edit-warring or considered stalking behavior, reverting another editor's edit is not considered disruptive behavior, it is part of the BRD process. You two should discuss your difference of opinion and I advised you to join the discussion at Talk:Mann Mayal. If you two can not come to an agreement there, the next step is Dispute resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of comments

    Hi, I want to remove my comments from the talk pages ( History of Islam, History of Iran, Achaemenid empire, Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire). Because my English is not very good, and I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I am going to retire from Wikipedia once and for all. Can you allow me to do this? Please come to my talk page. Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like you're removing a lot more than just your comments. Generally you aren't allowed to just delete entire threads containing other editor's responses. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would be helpful if someone kindly archived away any of the relevant talk page threads that have not been active for some time. MPS1992 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. It looks like the archival setup is broken on those three talk pages. I fixed Talk:History of Islam... I think. Someone might want to look at the other ones. It looks like the threads this editor is concerned about should be archived anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I want to remove all my comments from the talk pages. My comments are not very necessary for the articles. My maps are not going to be accepted in the articles. If I remove the comments from the talk pages will it really do any harm to the articles? I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Let me retire with all the comments. Please consider this thing a bit.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If we just removed your comments, then people's responses don't make sense. It would only make sense if you removed everything, which isn't normally allowed. If there were some compelling reason other than your belief they don't add much and desire to quit Wikipedia, then that might be something different. It is considered helpful to keep old discussions, even of ideas that are rejected, so people who come later with the same idea can know it has been proposed before, and the likely arguments they will face. As I said, our usual rule is to keep these old discussions unless there's some particular reason to remove them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's stil happening. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arman ad60: Please stop deleting discussions from talk pages. If you continue to refactor or remove other editors' talk page comments you may be blocked from editing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No you are not right. I am just trying to improve my English. I have changed just few sentences. And it hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do so. Can't I even correct my English?Arman ad60 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editing

    User:Ottaway is a clear undisclosed paid editor, who clearly works for Ottaway Digital Communications. The evidence is their username, and they've created 2 articles, both of which link to Otterway Digital Communications:

    1. Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, [246] shows that they're a client of Ottaway Digital Communications
    2. Classical Music America, [247] shows it's owned by Bob Otterway, who is President of Ottaway communications per [248].

    This information does not constitute outing as their username makes it blatantly obvious to connect the dots through simple Google searches, and I believe the user should be blocked as not here as well as for failing to provide a paid editing disclosure, as required by Wikimedia Terms of Use. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that their username is a clear disclosure. But besides WP:COI, we can also block based on WP:Username policy.--v/r - TP 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon and his disruptive "war on commas"

    Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    There are way to many diffs to list for this, but any admin or editor can easily look at;

    I'm asking that Dicklyon stop (or be stopped from) moving pages to remove, every, single, comma, he finds until the there is a consensus to support this project wide and changes are made to WP:MOS (lead) and WP:JR. Thank you - theWOLFchild 17:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need for him to mention me; I previously filed a complaint at #Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr. Somehow, a recent RfC discussion is used as justification for omitting commas. George Ho (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely why Wolfchild's action is canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not canvassing, so give it a rest already. Feel free to address the actual issue. - theWOLFchild 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure it's canvassing given there's an open thread on the same subject on this same page. If there's a concern, just turn this into a subsection above. I don't think neutral ANI notices are normally considered canvassing, though sending them to a bunch of otherwise unaffected people is unusual to say the least. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No wonder these ANIs turn into such train wrecks. 3 replies and not one addressing the actual issue... - theWOLFchild 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    WP:JR. There, I addressed the "actual issue". Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you add a link? Thanks - theWOLFchild 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing applies to the act of drawing in uninvolved editors to a discussion in an inappropriate manner. If you notice, the editors notified were actually involved in similar disputes with Dicklyon, all of which were linked to above in the ANI heading. As a result of linking to those discussions, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that TheWolfChild felt compelled to notify the editors involved at those links. Tying this to a behavioral guideline violation seems a bit premature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:JR;
    • Editors may use or omit a comma before Jr. or Sr. (Sammy Davis Jr.; Martin Luther King, Sr.) so long as each article is internally consistent. - This is before Dicklyon and Co. started mucking around with it to taylor it to their personal preferences.
    • Now it reads; Omission of the comma before Jr./Jr/Jnr or Sr./Sr/Snr is preferred. The comma can be used where a living subject's own preference or its use in current sources is clear and consistent. Articles should be internally consistent in either use or omission of the commas.
    • That's after this edit, with the edit summary "per RfC closure". However, the RfC (as noted above) was closed as "no consensus", with Drmies saying "MOS should express a preference toward not using commas. Grandfathering older articles, FAs, etc., is recommended, and one should remember that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy".
    • No where do I see a policy or a widespread consensus that says; "Go ahead Dicklyon, pretend your the wiki-terminator, a remorseless comma-killing machine from the future, here to edit-war, page-move-war and generally disrupt the project in fulfillment of your mission - to stamp out disease-spreading commas everywhere."
    • Again, I'm, asking that the page-moves and mass-removal of commas stops until a clear consensus is achieved and the guidelines are re-written to clearly reflect that consensus. - theWOLFchild 00:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, the matter has limited to just an issue for American English. Other regional English varieties have decided to scrap the comma out worldwide. Comma before Jr. or Sr. is now an American matter, not global. Still, we have to resort to recent sources using or omitting a comma. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators or editors condone Dicklyon's actions and condemn me apparently. In other words, administrators won't do much about actions of editors who keep removing commas. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't paint all admins with the same brush, there are a few good ones here that take their responsibilities seriously. With that said, I would still like to see a clear consensus, and clear guideline on this. Until then, neither admins nor editors should be "condoning" Dicklyon's actions, or anyone else's for that matter, that disrupt the project for their own personal preferences. - theWOLFchild 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The dispute is not whether the parenthetical comma has been dropped from English. (George Ho is incorrect in saying that we don't use it in other forms of English; we do, even though we do generally omit commas.) It is over whether you can change the MOS and then force all the articles to be changed to conform. This is what caused the push back from the content creators and article maintainers. As Drmies said, the MOS is supposed to be an advisory guideline to help writing articles, not to make it much harder to do so. Only FAs have a requirement to conform to the MOS, and there is no consensus that even they need to be constantly changed to conform to the latest version of the MOS. Moving the articles creates a great deal of disruption and additional work, as it break links to the reviews and causes trouble for the bots. I feel that if I can write whole articles in American English, then other people can live with the occasional comma or hyphen that offends their sensibilities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hawkeye7 says it well. Edit warring, large numbers of moves, etc., are easily disruptive, and the MOS should not be used to bludgeon other editors with. I mean, behavior that's disruptive cannot simply be whisked away by saying "it's the MOS". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – In relation to article content, I don't believe that changes to the MOS should act as a catalyst for editors to retroactively apply those changes to older articles that predate the change, especially when more than one style is acceptable. At the very least in these situations, the MOS shouldn't be relied upon for the last word when those changes are being contested. Instead, the typical process of establishing consensus through discussion should be followed. Perhaps the inclusion of more explicit text in the MOS' lead would help to clarify this to help avoid future confrontations like this one, but of course, that's a discussion to be had on its talk page – not here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear violation of unblock conditions

    Dicklyon was unblocked in December under the condition that he avoid making mass page moves (see [249]). Over the past several weeks, he has made dozens of page moves without gaining consensus first. The moves are also in clear violation of a recent RFC on the matter, which determined that grandfathering in existing titles was preferred (presumably to avoid the same mass moves Dicklyon has carried out). The WP:MoS, which Dicklyon and his followers point to in his defense, explicitly says "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

    So, to recap, Dicklyon is running afoul of his unblock condition, the RFC he cites and the MoS. He ought to, at a minimum, be told to stop making such controversial moves. Calidum ¤ 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Interestingly enough, Dicklyon was given a six-month ban from moving pages in April 2015 (see here). He was blocked indefinitely that same month, and a majority of users who commented on his unblock request in December felt that six-month ban should be kept in place. Calidum ¤ 03:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mass moves without consensus don't stop, the next ban should be longer. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might be an issue, but might not be. Dicklyon stopped pagemoves around the time the earlier ANI thread started. While he resumed them about 24 hours later (making around 50), it was after the thread had died down. What matters is the "potentially controversial" nature of the pagemoves: In other words, the unblock condition might be violated if the pagemoves weren't really controversial, but had the potential to be controversial. For me it hinges on the individual pagemoves made, at least after the ANI thread started, when Dicklyon was unquestionably on notice that there was a problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose any move is "potentially controversial". Are any actually controversial? Is there any basis at all for Thewolfchild's position that my removal of a comma from ship name that doesn't have one in sources was controversial? I understand that I pissed him off by not following BRD; since his revert had a counterfactual reason for reverting, in his edit summary, I simply reverted that error; even that should not be seen as controversial; please review my actions there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit to edit-warring, page-move-warring and repeat-moving a page, after it was disputed, violating WP:MOS. Thanks, that makes things easier. - theWOLFchild 17:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How about Larry Mullen, Jr., where you move-warred with an admin over the comma [250]? Just because your comrades in the anti-coma crusade showed up to oppose moving it back to the longstanding, stable title doesn't mean the move was uncontroversial. Or how about here [251] where you openly admit you edit redirects created by your page moves to make it impossible for non-admins to undo the undiscussed moves? Calidum ¤ 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Calidum, per this RM: Talk:Larry_Mullen_Jr.#Requested_move_20_March_2016, it appears that your using the "uncontroversial" process to add a comma against the guidance of the MOS was the more controversial bit. Yes, I reverted the resulting admin move (the same admin who opened the RM discussion in response to your attempt to again insert the comma), because it was incorrect, against a clear broad consensus as expressed at WP:JR. The RM discussion affirms this. I suggest people review that, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it were right in the end, it's still controversial. Don't play dumb. You're too smart to pretend these moves aren't controversial. Calidum ¤ 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a "clear broad consensus" you say? Only 7 editors have participated in that still-open debate and there is clearly no consensus there at all. Your comment is, to put it politely, disingenuous. - theWOLFchild 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mendaliv: - He knew full well these moves were controversial. His entire "war on commas" is. He was just brought to ANI for it, (see above) and his talk page is full of complaints about his page-moves and comma removals. Is this what the community had in mind when his indef block was lifted? Meanwhile, the page-moves and comma-removals need to stop for now. There needs to be a clear consensus and equally clear guideline on this before Dicklyon and Co. continue any further. - theWOLFchild 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the moves continue despite this ANI thread. See here for example. Calidum ¤ 18:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And here - theWOLFchild 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the potential controversy when our MOS and the vast majority of sources are in agreement? I understand that sometimes people who prefer to "follow the sources" find edits toward the preference of our own MOS to be controversial when usage in sources is ambiguous or contrary to our style. That is not the case in any of these that we are discussing, is it? Perhaps these are not at all controversial unless you choose to make them so? And why would you? Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But MOS clearly isn't in agreement with you here. And beyond that, the fact that the commas are an acceptable version and the moves are contested, means that the pages stay with their original titles. You know this, yet are deliberately ignoring it. Your continued conduct 'is therefore disruptive and completely flies in the face of your standard offer. The community allowed you back in after your recent indef block on the understanding you wouldn't cause anymore disruption. Just because you think you're right, doesn't mean that you are. You need to stop all this. - theWOLFchild 20:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may well be that Dicklyon is pushing the envelope here, and he's made a few more moves recently. What I cannot accurately judge is whether he's doing so disruptively, against consensus, by edit warring, etc. I see a few diffs, above, that allege edit warring--but what I would really like to hear here is what uninvolved editors have to say on the topic. For now, it may simply be that we have two parties fighting over content accusing each other of disruption. Wolfchild, I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment--I'm just saying that if we were to reblock for violation of unblock conditions, those violations need to be unequivocal, and I don't see that right now. Mind you, I need some coffee. But what I really need is more voices here, and preferably another admin to judge this as well. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies At the very least, the page-moves and comma removals should stop until all this gets sorted out. That's what I'm asking for here. Even the guidelines support that (and leaving an errant comma in place will not exactly destroy the project). A block is not what I am primarily seeking here (but if the any admins or the community are considering imposing one, it has my support). Look at the 2015 archive for MOS:BLP, this has been going on for over a year, with no consensus and no end in sight. It's time to bring this to an end. I just want the disruption, that numerous editors have now complained about, to stop until there is a clear direction to take with all this. - theWOLFchild 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon was unblocked with the wording "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Almost any MOS-based change is going to be large scale as it is not article specific. Faffing around with comma's is certainly controversial. And as comments at his unblocking were quite clear, editors were not keen on unblocking him with no restrictions. Perhaps Prodego erred in not making it explicit. But 'Dont make large scale changes in contested areas' should be clear enough to anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by the accused

    Sorry, not much internet on my long road trip today; just read this. You'll find my full confession (posted before this complaint was filed, I think) at this section. More context there, and more on request. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So much for "consensus"

    The RfC you so heavily relied on is now a joke. Only 7 editors participated, few of whom actually agreed with you, and it wasn't even closed. I pinged those 7 editors, (including yourself), and them only, to clarify who supported what. And what do you do? You ping 14 other editors (and counting), none of whom participated in that discussion, and are likely cherry-picked 'anti-comma' people. And this is supposed to prove... what? The fact is, you lied, (again) and you were caught in that lie. You didn't have the consensus you claimed you did, and you can ping a hundred more people, nothing will change that fact. (Where that's guy that cries about canvassing when you actually need him anyway?) lolz... Despite whatever happens now, watching you panic and try to spin this is amusing... - theWOLFchild 07:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times do I need to link it for you? It was recently archived from WP:VPP and I linked it on your other forum shop at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Consensus....3F. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent adding of unsourced puffery on page Frederick Achom

    Aliopuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Frederick Achom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User:Aliopuka, has been vandalising the page Frederick Achom. He/she has made the same edits User:Alex1977-1 was blocked for making. You can check [252]. They both seem to be part of a large sockfarm of paid editors.NihartouJason (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have been inappropriately waning NihartouJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment. I am a little concerned when I look at Aliopuka's contribs, because they seem to be getting around awful well for somebody with just 80 edits, slapping speedy deletes and CN and uncat tags on things. However, they may just be a very quick learner and not be a sock at all. We need a checkuser to be sure, and their edits don't look like "vandalism" and "puffery" to me anyway. Also, NihartouJason, it's not right to go around telling people that they can't edit a particular article. See WP:BOLD. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am very concerned with the content Aliopuka is supporting. Quite a few of the references do not exist or mention the subject at all. (ex [253] <- looks like spam as opposed to reference [254] [255] [256] [257]). As such, I've removed those warnings as bogus. Also, I might want to point out this. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks more like the PR department of a firm than actual sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : Actually, NihartouJason is vandalizing the article without taking part in the talk page discussion despite repeatedly asking and I have opened this discussion[258]. He is blatantly removing sourced material including awards and adding defamation content which clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

    My first edit to the page was[259] for which I left this talk page message[260] Later, when I saw removal of sourced content such as awards, career etc. from the page's edit history then I tried to add them back[261] from a neutral POV with {{cn}} where no sources were provided such as[262], [263] etc.

    But instead of contacting me or leaving any message to any talk page, NihartouJason reported me here[264] where I made this comment[265] as NihartouJason seems to me a SPA account with a particular interest to insert defamation content only to the article. He has been warned on his talk pages but still he is reporting me instead of addressing the real issue on the talk. Aliopuka (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Voidwalker:, I am not supporting any sources. I just tried to restore the deleted material removed by the SPA account[266] and repeatedly ask to discuss on the talk page to reach a consensus instead of blatantly removing the sourced materials. If the sources do not cite the claims then anyone can remove from the article with suitable edit summary or talk page message.Aliopuka (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG:, The SPA a/c User:NihartouJason seem to me a paid editor who might have any monetary issues with the subject of the page thus trying to add the defamation content to the page. Aliopuka (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aliopuka: You are accusing me of not explaining myself on the talk page. Please have a look here. [267],[268]. My main concern is that if you have good intentions then why are you editing the page as the blocked user User:Alex1977-1 did, you just changes the language structure a bit and restored the previous questionable content[269].I reported him and he was blocked and is currently undergoing a sockpuppet investigation. And why do you keep removing the conviction information even when it is properly sourced. NihartouJason (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So, finally you posted on the talk page[270]. Well, let me explain you. I used the revision by User:Addiecolb and not of any other editors. Secondly, you should discuss on the article's talk page and not on your sandbox. I checked your sandbox draft talk page and it is one sided judgement by only you. I do not see any other editors involvement in it. For example, you said the Jewish Business News source has no author but the news was by their staff reporter so need of a author however, the source does mention "By Jewish Business News" or you said this link[271] doesn't mention "Achom" while the source does mention him so you see, this is not a procedure to reach consensus. Why you removed the awards as well as presented the controversy with undue weight? What is your particular interest with "Frederick Achom"? Please, post your rationale on the article's talk page and treat appropriately with other editors. Aliopuka (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The sandbox was created by User:Jeff G. and he invited anyone to present a more balanced article[272]. After completing the draft article, I posted the link on the main article's talk page no one objected it. I messaged a few editors who were active on this article to check my version. They told me if no one else obstructs then they will assume Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. The awards you are referring to were not supported by any evidence the ones which were, I bumped them up to the intro section. The controversy is not of undue weight just google "Achom Wine Fraud"[http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/restaurants/wine-scam-costs-investors-110m-6326500.html

    ] and you will know about it. Why do you keep removing it even after it is supported by adequate number of references?.NihartouJason (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes, I made that sandbox and did not oppose copying it to the main article after Jason was done with it. I am just trying to improve the project here, but I suspect others are POV pushing and not disclosing, which behavior warrants attention above my pay grade.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have checked your edits and wine fraud scam edits seem legitimate to me based on the sources you provided. However, I will further check all the references. But still you haven't answered why you removed the other adequately sourced materials? Why you mentioned that this link[274] didn't mention "Achom"? Do you know you can't just delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer? Also, I do not know why User:The Voidwalker undid my warnings on your talk page and stating those warnings as bogus as they were not! Anyway, I have asked him for his rationale as you have clearly removed sourced material from the article which I have restored and are still there on the page.Aliopuka (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the warnings because I could see serious referencing issues in the material that was being removed. However, a more thorough review shows that a good bit of the material is quite acceptable. Ordinarily, one should review the material they add/remove to an article.
    I don't really believe that there is much abuse going on here, rather than a failure to understand. More discussion, rather than templating or reporting, likely would have solved the issues here. Time permitting, I plan on going through the article and cleaning up the material. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the very beginning I insisted on discussion but the SPA User:NihartouJason reported me twice! Any editor can check the page's edit history how sourced material was removed by User:NihartouJason. I just tried to restore the deleted material and reach consensus for improving the project. If removal of large section with awards/accolades, careers is not against Wikipedia norms then what are? If you see serious referencing issues then you could have discussed on the talk page or with the concerned editor instead of removing the warnings. Please, also note that the SPA User:NihartouJason was previously warned for removal of sourced content. I have just tried to restore deleted materials first as there were edit wars on that article (check the page history for clear understanding). Clearly, your judgement was wrong! Anyway, I undid your removal of warnings as the warnings were not "bogus" IMO and left a message on that talk page. Feel free to discuss regarding this and honestly, I checked the removed materials by the SPA user and not all the material had serious referencing issues as you stated. Further the SPA editor reported me instead of discussion or any talk page message as per standard Wikipedia norms. Btw, if you see any referencing issue then feel free to discuss on talk page or edit yourself with a edit summary. I will be happy to discuss on any improvements to the article. Regards, Aliopuka (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sibbs11

    Sibbs11 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed referenced content from the article Mahto, including from various IPs (WP:DUCK):

    The article states (with references) that the surname "Mahto" is used by multiple Indian castes. Apparently, Sibbs11 belongs to the Koeri caste, and insists on removing mention of any other castes from the article.

    The user refuses to indulge in any discussion except threats:

    • On talk page of Tbhotch: "Please delete this content...and Mahto sir name do not belong to all the listed caste except koeri MAHTO. Delete this. Else will put complain against you." [286]
    • On my talk page: "You have wrong information about mahto sir name. None of the catse belong to mahto sir name. Please delete else will raise a compain against you." [287]
    • On own talk page after folks on IRC refused to help him: "I did not get any help..They are not taking my request and they deliberately intended to defame this community by not removing castes line." [288]
    • After being given level 4 warning: "I have already discussed several times. Ultimately i have to take this step to remove the irrelevant contents. Please don't come in between and add irrelevant articles under this topic. I will request the wiki management to revoke you from the admin access. As you are not here to listen any ones voice and just to fight with the words with zero knowledge. I warn you if you try to undo the edited contents I will take this matter to the higher authorities."[289]

    Note: Contrary to his claims that he has "discussed several times", he has not participated in any discussion except above threats.

    I am tempted to block the user for disurptive editing / incompetence. But I would like someone else to take a look at this to avoid WP:INVOLVED, as I've undone the user's edits in the past and protected the page to prevent his/her IPs from editing the page. utcursch | talk 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you file an sockpuppet investigation at all? Might consider asking for page protection too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already protected the page to allow only autoconfirmed users. The IPs are obviously related to the user per WP:DUCK. I just want another admin to handle this matter because I have been involved in editing the article. utcursch | talk 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant BLP violation and subsequent protection by involved Admin

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes is the page in question.

    I've blanked it during the MFD due to the obvious BLP violation. An Admin has protected the page after voting keep, keeping the BLP violating information still in of course.

    Further reading here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes Arkon (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your interpretation that it was a BLP violation was hardly the consensus view at the MFD, so it does not qualify as an "obvious" violation that requires edit warring, or even as a violation at all. It did not require immediate removal, as evidenced by your only removing it after I said something you didn't like in the MFD discussion, so your actions are quite pointy. Article protection is supposed to be used in cases of edit warring to prevent further disruption, so the admin acted per policy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of BLP is fucked in general if you think this is ok on an encyclopedia, or in accordance to Wikipolicy. As for the MFD, I am hardly the only one to say it was one, not even counting the original speedy deletion request. Protection of a page with a BLP violation is shameful. Your actions are shameful. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I had a COI in protecting the page from edit-warring, and I don't interpret BLP like Arkon is. That said, I'm open to the idea that I am mistaken in believing that I did not have a COI, and I invite any admin to modify my action as they see appropriate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a COI, INVOLVED. You don't interpret making things up about a living person on wikipedia to be a BLP violation. Wonderful trait in an admin. Arkon (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really concerned with your interpretation, as you've already stated it at least a dozen times. Let the community come and voice their thoughts. I could very well be wrong; I make no claims of perfection. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to be concerned with much, which is why we are here. As for it being "my" interpretation, that's obviously incorrect if you actually read the pages you participated on. I am not the only one who has stated the obvious about this page. Still didn't say whether you interpret making things up about a living person as a BLP violation. Arkon (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's a joke based on body shaming. It has to go. April 1 is over and it's clearly a BLP violation. It's the same kind of joke that generates a juvenile snicker but the snicker doesn't mean it's not a BLP violation. It's right up there with fat jokes about Hillary and "cankles." --DHeyward (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Respectfully, WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is clear; consensus must be obtained before restoration of material. Information should not be restored on the basis that there is "no consensus" for removal; clear consensus for inclusion is required. Respectfully request that Ed remove the protection & Gamaliel self-revert the restoration, pending formation of a clear consensus for inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, if the current version of the Signpost relies on the existence of a page which makes this type of statement about a living person, then the appropriate response is to remediate the current version of the Signpost, not to edit war123 to reinsert unsourced information about living persons which had been the subject of clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions. Regardless of whether the information is found to be a BLP violation, or the "humour" aspects are found to be a sufficient reason for retention (albeit unsupported by policy), the edit warring is a clear violation of WP:BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arkon has reverted the closure of this section four times and has told the closing admin "you can fuck right off". There are a lot bigger problems here than some dumb joke about Donald Trump. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are clearly issues, and they should be handled, but the close was genuinely problematic and I considered reverting it myself. The comment by Ryk72 wasn't addressed at all and even prompted the protecting admin to remove protection (thanks for considering opposing views by the way, Ed). Closing it as "you're an idiot that doesn't understand policy" is a bit absurd. ~ RobTalk 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it wasn't the best close in the world. But involved parties don't get to override closures like that. If I edit warred to reverse a closure I didn't like, you can bet Arkon would be screaming about my "abuse" at the top of his lungs. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that, and Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so. Over the year or so I've been around Wikipedia, I've developed a distaste for injecting myself into debates on behavioral issues - too much drama - so I'll stay out of that bit. I'm just saying that the closure was a bit nuts and I think this should remain open. ~ RobTalk 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, I'm considering opposing views, but I'm still finding it awfully hard to see how 'Donald Trump has small hands' is not an obvious (stupid yet amusing) joke. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The ed17: Have you seen this? It's apparently a real thing that pisses Trump off. Not to mention the well-covered threats of litigation that Trump frequently makes, which this is also poking fun at. Honestly, if I saw this thread out of the context of April 1, I would not jump to "it's a joke" immediately. ~ RobTalk 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we actually agree that "IT WAS A PRANK BRO" is no excuse for BLP vios. That'd be nice. Arkon (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arkon's behavior can be dealt with if editors care to do so." If only we had some kind of noticeboard where we could do that.... Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know right! You could always ban me without process through a completely private procedure where I have no right of response, just sayin'. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good example of what we have as arbcom members apparently. Someone now defending putting another BLP violation, and a personal attack as close, as being ok it seems, but fuck off is just tooo far. Now that needs the humorous template. Arkon (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The really humorous thing is your deep concern about BLP when it comes to people you don't like: [290] [291]. Someone who uses talk pages as a forum to libel attack people who aren't rich presidential candidates is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, everyone who reads this section, click those diffs. Great demonstration of how far from reality Gamaliel's ideas of what BLP is, actually are. Arkon (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LIBEL and WP:NLT are pretty solid. We usually don't accuse other editors of libel as it can be seen as a legal threat and the correct course is to remove libelous material. "libel" should be used sparingly and only in discussions regarding content, not as way of casting aspersions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am pretty blown away that a user at ANI can edit war over an admin's close right here and can tell that admin they "can fuck right off" and that user is not blocked (that's a link to a clean block log). Why is this person not blocked? Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Because being an admin does not mean you can close with a BLP violation and a personal attack as the summary? Because using vulgarity seems to be the preferred way of argumentation (NEW AND IMPROVED SANCTIONED BY ARBCOM)and is hardly blockable? Or why are you sniping instead of responding to the actual point? Arkon (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've created an entirely new issue by your behavior and discredited whatever point you were originally making; you seem to be claiming to passionately defend one policy but you have definitely trashed two of them. I am just fascinated with the dynamics here - this is the most disrespectful thing I've seen done to the entire admin corps and the community by someone who is not already indeffed since... it must be procaryotes reverting the close on own his Tban appeal at AN a couple months ago. And the admins are doing nothing. So strange, all around. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is for discussing disruption, and it is not uncommon for OPs to have their own behavior boomerang on them, especially when they are this blatant and even doggedly defending their disruption. It shreds whatever notions we have that there are boundaries of acceptable behavior around here (and shreds the basis for Arkon's claim, since policy apparently doesn't actually matter if it gets in the way of what you want). I would file an EWN notice but it happened right here. Just so interesting and strange, especially the admin inaction aspect. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't WP:STANDUPFORTHEESTABLISHMENTNOMATTERWHAT_Noticeboard. If you're trying to prove you're part of the "in crowd" to garner yourself an RfA nom in the future, this isn't the place to do it.--v/r - TP 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, the multiple restorations (links above) of material removed on clearly identified, good faith, BLP grounds is a blatant violation. WP:BLP is clear - consensus must be obtained before restoring redacted material. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds correct. I didn't know about "multiple restorations". The MfD can consider alleged BLP violations behind a blanking. Alleged BLP-violating material shouldn't be restored while it is in dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever else has gone wrong here, @Gamaliel: you should certainly not have removed the CSD tag from that page[292], as is said in bold in the lead of the policy WP:CSD: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." Fram (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow, this is lame. An April Fools' joke that gets the full BLP policy treatment by people on all sides? JzG already pointed to WP:NCR, which is much more relevant to this dispute than WP:BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 12:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mfd seems strongly in favor for deletion. Seeing that this is a BLP and now that all have had their fun, perhaps a BOLD admin could step in and IAR by closing the Mfd and deleting this stupidity.--MONGO 13:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This was closed by JzG as follows: This does not require administrator intervention - not even the 3RR violation by the OP. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reopened this because a) it is debatable whether this required or requires admin intervention or not, considering the BLP nature of things and the back-and-forth (some against policy) by admins / arbcom members already happening there; and b) the OP did not make any 3RR violations, as he made one blanking and two reverts only. Having a section where the OP was basically right (viz the subsequent SNOW deletion) closed with a hatnote that implies that the only problematic edits were some non-existant 3RR violation by the OP (but which ignores the actual problematic edits by others) is not the best way to end this mini-drama. Fram (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Argument that BLP contentious material needs to be preserved because Signpost uses it, is one of the silliest things I have seen here. Also 1st April was a week ago, a bit late for April Fools.--Staberinde (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And the hits just keep coming...

    I saw that userbox before the deletion, I am forever scarred from the experience. Luckily Mr. Trump did not see it or we would regret it!--Milowent • hasspoken 18:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer that editors keep such pointy comments elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a social network. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility of Arkon

    Setting aside the issue of the the now deleted article, can we look into the civility of Arkon? I'm seeing some incredibly abusive behavior, including cursing at several admins. This is not behavior of someone who wants to collaborate. --Tarage (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You are seeking to sanction him after MfD validated his BLP concerns with a snow close? How about we take a look at those that violated BLP policy and not Editor Profanity Disorder? Note that ArbCom member that violated BLP and reverted to keep BLP violations, then complained about profanity, then accused Arkon of libel, also created and allowed multiple signpost article with profanity using the same offensive terms. His complaints are disingenuous at best and his behavior was the worst. --DHeyward (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of disingenuous complaints, it's interesting you are so offended by a little swearing in the Signpost when you use the comments section of those same Signpost articles to call people Nazis. The fact that the MFD was closed in favor of Arkon's preferred outcome - and the preferred outcome of many other editors - does not give Arkon license to tell an uninvolved admin to "fuck right off". The logical extension of that ridiculous claim is that everyone who is on the right side of a consensus gets to violate whatever policy they want. Nor does your preexisting grudge against me for sanctioning you for your repeated violations in unrelated topic areas have any bearing on the appropriateness of Arkon's conduct. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not offended, I just don't see the need. I didn't swear at you nor do I condone it, but the essence of Wikipedia is completely captured when the notion that an edit summary of "The close was fucked up" is okay, but "fuck off" is not and "Nuts" is still reserved for the Battle of the Bulge. I'm pretty sure the BLP policy says exactly that BLP Trumps everything (even Small Handed Admins) and there is a BLP exemption for nearly everything. That you continue to pretend your BLP violation was okay even after consensus is problematic as well as your zeal to punish BLP defenders. As for grudge, I have none. You have very selective memory and your "sanction" has never been enforced. I don't even bother appealing it but it was another example of your problematic behavior given the "grudge" you must hold from when your Lori Klausutis article was deleted for BLP reasons (but you claim you don't remember so you are "uninvolved" in everything even though we have butted heads for 10 years - good luck with that). Your American Politics involvement is so problematic that you should be banned from the topic but again you are "neutral." And no, I never called anyone a Nazi (another sideshow canard to go with the ones I just mentioned). --DHeyward (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no memory of what article you are talking about from ten years ago or whatever imaginary connection you may think we have had, but I do recall you calling me a Nazi a week ago. You have a bizarre habit of pretending we are lifelong buddies when you aren't viciously insulting me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know! It's amazing how quickly everything is forgotten when "involved" would warrant abstention, but your false Nazi aspersion memory just makes stuff up. I never claimed we were buddies. Quite the opposite. That's why all your "uninvolved" BS rings so hollow. And now you have a Nazi grudge. Outstanding. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Life is too short to bother remembering everyone you may or may not have had an internet argument with a decade ago. And there aren't enough hours in the day to worry about every person who ever called me a Nazi. There's been a webpage about me (google it!) with a picture of me next to a Nazi flag that's been up for years. You'll have to try harder to merit an actual grudge. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't bother, just every political BLP violation involves you. I just pointed out how far back the problem goes. And by the way, diffs on the "Nazi" thing or STFU. --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-09/Systemic_bias#Kyriarchy.2C_Something_about_Arbcom. And if you really believe the preposterous claim that "every political BLP violation involves" me, WP:ARCA is thataway ----> Bring your diffs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So being right absolves you from any transgressions? I'm not saying that one side in this argument is saintly. I'm saying nearly everyone involved has mud on their hands, and we shouldn't just ignore incivility because someone happened to be right in this instance. --Tarage (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't you heard? Cursing is the bee's knees Arkon (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is quite a subjective thing. See this op-ed from the Signpost for a different perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's even more abusive is using Wikipedia Signpost (and any other part of Wikipedia) as a means to display one's personal political shitposts under the thinly-veiled explanation that its just an April Fool's gag. And yeah, I just cursed, too. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arkon should not be faulted for his behavior. Frankly, any means necessary is appropriate to defend Mr. Trump from the scurrilous slime which Gamaliel perpetrated upon him. If one million f-bombs are necessary to remove a false old headline about Donald Trump's hand size, so be it. Except if the editors are women.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he should, because he revert-warred on this page, but the sanction should not go beyond a little light mockery for initiating one of the most stupid, pointless and pointlessly protracted arguments I can recall here. A joke page was created on the day we create joke pages. It has been deleted. The sky has not fallen. Some people badly need to get a sense of proportion. Perhaps they have really small hands and are terribly sensitive about it. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And being right is somehow an excuse for terrible behavior as well. Stop this nonsense and start being civil. It's not too much to ask. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think it would be a simple request when it's one of our five pillars. Apparently not. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You think cursing is terrible behavior? That's interesting. Your contribution history is also interesting in regards to this new found civility crusade.
    It's more than your cursing and you know it. It's not a crusade to look at the actions of one editor and go "Oh my gosh, what is wrong with this person?", it's common sense. I don't know why you are flailing around with your stick, but you need to drop it and stop now. I do not understand how this behavior is being tolerated. And for the record, I don't have a horse in this race, so please don't lump me into either political camp. --Tarage (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You started this section, on me, I have no stick, but I will respond as needed. I also never lumped you into any political whatever, if you believe that's what this is you should just go ahead and withdraw from this discussion. Here, let me give you the "ProWiki" response: Your original "you were right but.." should stop right there, as one of the five pillars (Hi Gamaliel!), is IAR. So whatever your gripe, I did the right thing in that context. Of course, the real response is that it's astonishing that you find bluntness with curse words, to be a problem while nary a comment regarding actual issues. Sounds Meaty even. Arkon (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR doesn't excuse you from being a civilized human being. There are a million ways you could have gone about this entire thing. You choose one of the most toxic and dividing. There is being blunt and there is being needlessly aggressive and offensive to multiple people. Multiple people have pointed this out to you. It's one of the 5 pillars for cripes sake. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I think you're outnumbered on the whole "multiple people" thing, with people who actually did the bad deeds being in your group. Do you mean we got a 5 pillar battle royale brewing? Arkon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As for dear Ol' Gamaliel, you know what was a simple request? A speedy deletion tag on fabricated text about a living person, which you removed, then argued to actually keep. Trying to use policy as a hammer when you can't even get a grip on the thing isn't very smart, might hit your thumb, your tiny tiny thumb. Arkon (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I love how adults pretend to not understand the difference between profanity and personal attacks. For example, your comment contained no profanity but several personal attacks. Your attacks on Guy contained profanity and personal attacks. Keliana's column linked above contained profanity but no personal attacks. It's not that difficult to grasp, even for those poor souls afflicted with tiny, tiny hands and need special BLP protection from even a mild reference to their affliction.. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, a double down on ignorance of the harm that is caused by making shit (OHMYGOD) up about living people. Arkon (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Arkon, when you talk about people's small body parts, you need to use the {{humor}} template so they know it's not a BLP violation.--v/r - TP 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistency is the hobgoblin of small hands;. But seriously: the community should think about the growing deployment, chiefly by right-wing extremists working to keep Wikipedia in line, of crocodile tears. The pearl clutching over an arbitrator using the F word in a signpost article, or calling a joke "terrible behavior," is highly uncivil and, in fact, quite toxic. (If it's terrible behavior, the cover of a recent New Yorker ought to be sanctioned as well.) Conversely, when Gamergaters use Wikipedia to spread rumors about a software developer’s sexual history, or pore through their undergraduate assignments for evidence that they are soft of pedophiles, well, no problem! Oversight will get around to the matter within a day or two of notification, so no big deal, right? (Both the preceding examples are from the past week, incidentally.) This sort of dishonesty is likely to cause the project a lot of trouble, one of these days. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay it's Mark! He's here to tell us how to be civil, listen carefully folks. Arkon (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, that's enough. Can we please act like we're building an encyclopedia? The correct term per WP:MEDMOS is sausage fingers. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of admin tools by Gamaliel

    @Gamaliel:, after all the above (including your policy-violating removal of a CSD tag from a page you created and which has since been Snow deleted), did you really think that creating and then using protection to keep User:Gamaliel/Small hands from blanking or deletion was a correct use of the admin tools? Yes, we have U1, but that's not meant for admins to protect their own controversial subpages from blanking. WP:INVOLVED comes clearly into play here. Fram (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I regularly protect subpages in my userspace as I am the frequent target of vandalism. My user page has been protected since 2005. Would you like to see the rev deleted edits that I used to get on a daily basis graphically describing imagined sex acts of my own parents? I deleted it the userbox, it's over, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (removed trolling by Milowent, please stop these childish posts here) Fram (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, you're still discussing actions by others in this whole stupid drama you started, but your actions should be ignored because you want this and because you have, in completely unrelated circumstances, been the victim of sexual harassment? There are unprotected pages in your userspace (I'll not list them per BEANS), but this one suddenly needed immediate and full protection? Right... That you deleted the userbox hours later doesn't simply make the misuse disappear. If you want other people to drop the stick, then start by giving the right example instead of what you have been doing and are still doing here. And in general, even if you wpuld be in the right, "drop the stick" after the first remark about some aspect of your own behaviour, and without anyone uninvolved even chiming in, is a rather pathetic reply. Fram (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, there are some subpages I've neglected to protect. I don't feel like going through three year old to do lists and draft articles to protect everything. I brought up the harassment not as an exemption, but to point out why I use the protection in a perfectly routine, acceptable manner that you are trying to make drama out of. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are misusing the harassment to justify your protection of your own page to score a WP:POINT after the Signpost page was deleted. That is not "a perfectly routine, acceptable manner" but behaviour incompatible with being an admin and arbcom member. I hope this is just a temporary lapse and that you will see this for what it is after this has died down a bit. Fram (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, instead of adding your test page to the Signpost index for 2010, like you did here, you could have deleted the entry you added earlier for the page that started this whole discussion, even though that wasn't a real 2010 page in any case. I have removed both. Are there still more places where you have added the now deleted Signpost page? Fram (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an "effing" APRIL FOOLS joke people. God, will someone just get a grip here? (Whether they have small hands or not?) Facepalm Facepalm Montanabw(talk) 00:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a prank bro!! Arkon (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: That's cool bro, I'll just let all the right-wing religious nuts we have on Wikipedia know that on April 1st, they can say anything they want about Chelsea Manning and we won't stop them.--v/r - TP 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Political satire involves poking fun at the powerful, not bullying people who are not well-positioned to defend themselves. You are making a false analogy here. Montanabw(talk) 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: You're quite right. So, the line in WP:BLP granting an exemption for politicians is...where...exactly? Or, perhaps, WP:POLITICALSATIRE isn't a red link? No? Yeah, it's easy to exempt yourself when the BLP subject is someone you have complete contempt for; but WP:BLP doesn't grant you a personal exemption for that either.--v/r - TP 06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) With sincere respect to the authors of the Signpost article and their strong histories of contribution to the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of political satire. If editors wish to write and have published political satire, they should seek out a publisher of such material; or alternately take advantage of the many opportunities for self-publication that the Internet provides. I encourage all participants in this discussion to please read WP:NOT and WP:BLP. I also note that the ANI filing relates not to the appropriateness of the Signpost article, but to breaches of WP:BLP and misuse of admin tools. NOTE: Clearly the closes are premature. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting worse and worse the more I look at all that happened here. Did you really edit war to reclose a discussion about yourself here[293], and here, and here for the thrid time, warning the other editor at that time that he is at 3 reverts, which of course also applies to yourself? Removing CSD tags from a page you created, protecting a page you created as a POINT violation, edit warring to close an ANI discussion about your own actions, adding test pages and hoaxes to Signpost indexes for 2010, ... what's next? The original creation and wanting to keep the page can be seen as a lapse of judgment, but everything you did in the surrounding events is seriously worrying. Please stop and take a serious step back here. Fram (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you'll find that, if you seriously think this is a serious question, there's a serious place called ArbCom to raise it. It’s.....thataway ---> MarkBernstein (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, I'm sorry you saw my removed comment[294] as trolling. Really this whole thing is getting out of hand. "SMALLHANDSGHAZI" was my way of communicating that. The Signpost is an independent newspaper for Wikipedia, not Donald J. Trump's personal mouthpiece, though it might be much more invaluable to mankind if it was. People can have different views about whether Gamaliel's satirical attacks on the world's best person were funny or not, and his subsequent attempts to avoid censorship of his journalistic message. Mr. Trump wants more waterboarding, I suppose that would be a proper punishment for Gamaliel. A small hands user box and small hands headline ... life is too short.--Milowent • hasspoken 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued BLP and POINT violations by Gamaliel

    After the above sections (but before the close of the discussion) first User:Jayen466[295] and then User:Gamaliel[296] thought it a good idea to readd the "small hands" line to the Signpost page, despite the clear concerns many people have about this. Can someone uninvolved please make it very clear to him that the Signpost is not his private playground, exempt from BLP or separate from Wikipedia? Continuing to insert a BLP violation and lame joke just because you can is really very poor behaviour. Yes, this would be a very lame ArbCom case, but there's no reason that we can't handle this without their aid.

    This kind of behaviour would not be accepted from regular editors, who would now either be at a final warning or blocked for such continuation of problematic behaviour; accepting this from an admin or Arbcom member gives the strong impression that people with those positions are allowed more disruption than others. Fram (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that he also felt the need to readd the fake 2010 page to the SIgnpost index for that year[297], and that after another editor removed it, this wsa reverted by User:Montanabw (who just happens to be a co-author of the Signpost Trump page) with the rather hypocritical summary "please do not edit-war"[298]. Why a page, created in 2016 and snow deleted a few days later, needs to be added to a Signpost index for 2010 is not clear, unless it is another WP:POINT violation by Gamaliel and the like. Has anyone kept count of how many very problematic edits Gamaliel has made in this situation so far? Fram (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support block to stop harming the encyclopedia with BLP violating material. There's been consensus MfD and despite all the calls to end this stupid drama and close the ANI, he continues to edit war and find ways ways to reinsert deleted material. His failure to stop and to heed advice means this isn't going to end without a timeout. His battleground behavior is disruptive and his BLP violations inexcusable given all the feedback and the expectations of admins and arbcom members. No one else would have been given this many chances to stop disruptive behavior and far too many editors have to clean up his mess. People want this silly thing to end and a block seems to be the only thing that will end it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block (absent a sincere mea culpa, and with profound regret) to prevent continued BLP violations; additionally request that a genuinely uninvolved admin examine whether discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS should be applied. While the initial Signpost article may be thought to have been merely an ill-considered violation of WP:NOT, the continued WP:BLP violations and involved actions are blatant and ongoing. Edit warring to restore material removed under a clearly identified, good faith, BLP redaction and edit warring to restore a poorly thought out close of an ANI discussion of the editor are egregious violations. The editor has shown no understanding, above, that their actions not only violate policy, but are also deeply uncivil and disrespectful of the community - electing instead to engage, above, in ad hominem, tu quoque and red herring fallacies. The editor has clearly breached, and clearly intends to continue to breach, policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Fram, I didn't "re-add" the "small hands" line, because it was in the article all along. What I did was change it from a redlink to a link to April Fools' Day. --Andreas JN466 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see now what happened and why the others probably were so insistent to keep it in the Module Signpost index. The page, before your edit, got the "Trump" articles from Module:Signpost/index/2010. At the moment, this doesn't show the disputed line. At the time of your edit to the News and Notes page, it was again for a while there thanks to the reverts by Gamaliel and Montanabw. So your edit didn't add the line, but had as result (though probably not intentionally) that the changes to the Modulo:Signpost page had no effect there, while without your edit the disputed line would have disappeared there. Hence my impression that you added it, while your view was that you changed a redlink to a bluelink (no idea why that was necessary, but it's a different kind of edit of course). Gamaliel, in the next revert there, did explicitly readd it though. Fram (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, you got it, Fram. That's exactly what happened. Basically the whole mess started because the "Related articles" box in the Signpost usually gets its content from that Signpost module. The idea was to have such a box in that April Fools piece, and hence the dummy entries in the Signpost index were created. With hindsight, that was a bad way of doing it, because these dummy pages existed in Wikipedia space as standalone pages; anyone happening on them would not have seen what their sole purpose in life was. So I agree with the deletion argument that JzG put forward in the MfD: "Delete or userfy, this is a joke but it's in a location where readers would not expect one, so needs to go from there. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". I don't think we would ever do this again, given that we've now figured out how to create a similar-looking "Related articles" sidebar manually.[reply]
        • Having said all that, I personally don't consider that "small hands" line, now explicitly hyperlinked to April Fools' Day in the Signpost piece for anyone who clicks on it, and prefaced by a humour template at the top of the piece, problematic on BLP grounds. It is now as clear as we can possibly make it that the piece is humour, and not to be taken seriously. The Signpost can't function as a community newspaper if we can't express opinions; all our recent reporting about the troubles at WMF relied on opinion, and in some cases non-public information, and I think it's generally agreed that it provided a service to the community. So you can't hold the Signpost to the same standards as article space, where every opinion has to be sourced, because by this reasoning, anyone could have deleted many essential Signpost articles of the last three months "on BLP grounds".
        • As far as the standalone, dummy page is concerned, the community has spoken, and I agree with that decision: the dummy page should never have been created, and it is gone. We've also deleted the other two, and I see no need to keep them in the index, given that they never existed. But we need a bit of editorial autonomy for the Signpost to function. So if people feel that the "small hands" reference, explicitly linked to April Fools' Day, is a BLP problem, then please start a discussion at WP:BLP/N, because this is a materially different question from the existence of the dummy page that was decided in the MfD; and if consensus at BLP/N is that it is a BLP problem, I'm sure we'll abide by it. Personally, as I say, I disagree with that view, and will argue against it if the matter is raised there. So if anyone has concerns about Signpost content on BLP or other grounds, I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. To me, at the moment, the "was it a BLP violation or not" angle is not really the essence, the main problem for me is how Gamaliel did everything to keep it alive before and after it was snow deleted, and how at the same time he did everything he could to end discussion of his actions. This is bad in all circumstances, and even more so when a lot of people fel it was about a BLP violation, where we should err on the side of caution. As for the editorial freedom of the Signpost and the comparison to e.g. WMF-related discussion: the Signpost is intended to discuss Wikipedia-related issues, and this includes serious problems within the WMF or where e.g. the donor money comes from or goes to. The page under discussion here had next-to-nothing to do with Wikipedia, it was not a joke at the expense of Wikipedia but one at the expense of Trump. No matter anyone's personal opinions of the man (and many of us will have strong opinions of him one way or the other), the Signpost was not the place to do this on April 1, and even less the place to continue this after April 1 was over. But this is a side discussion to the actions of Gamaliel, so if you want to continue it I suggest either a new subsection or a different location altogether. Fram (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Gamaliel is the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and I don't think it's appropriate for people to edit-war with him in the Signpost on the basis of their personal opinions. If someone feels there is a genuine BLP issue, each Signpost piece has a talk page (the feedback on the April Fools piece was overwhelmingly positive), and there are noticeboards where that sort of concern can be expressed in an orderly fashion. Andreas JN466 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • One more thing, about a section you added while I wrote my reply. "[...]I would ask them to please use the proper channels rather than going to the Signpost pages and edit-warring retrospective changes into published Signpost articles." Linking the "small hands" line to April Fool's Day is a retroactive change, it wasn't the target at the time it was posted (or for a week afterwards). So you didn't follow your own advice here... Fram (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Following that change, the article looked exactly the same as at publication, except that the headlines in the sidebar now linked to April Fools' Day instead of the dummy pages—and that was a response to their deletion (creating redlinks) and the BLP concerns expressed at the MfD. Along with the addition of the humour template, I still think that's a good solution. Andreas JN466 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block or at the least a topic ban from politics. These politically motivated "jokes" are violations of our core policies, no matter what the date of publishing. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a clear sign that "IT WAS JUST A JOKE" does not and never will excuse fabricating things about a living person on Wikipedia. Arkon (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make Wikipedia Great Again: Do Not Block: I wanted to comment that this whole tirade against Gamaliel (even if you dislike the joke and want to discuss that with him, which people should if they do) flies in the face of a 15 year tradition of *preserving* such antics. Within 15 days of Wikipedia's founding, a non-mainspace page was created called "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense", see Wikipedia:Silly Things. This over the years has housed many many silly BLP violations, easily found via google, still preserved. See, e.g., Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#The_Early_Life_of_Brian_Nichols, or Wikipedia:More_Best_of_BJAODN#From_George_W._Bush, Wikipedia:Even_more_Best_of_BJAODN#Mark_Ogilvie, Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN#Y0-Y0_Ma, Nostalgia wikipedia (U2 bashing at bottom). The "small hands" joke about Trump is so longstanding and pervasive that it is reasonable to see how Gamaliel thought it would be OK, and that preservation of the joke was OK under longstanding consensus. This is not a joke about about calling Barack Obama "the magic negro", Chelsea Manning some homophobic slur, or a mainspace article about George Bush choking on a pretzel (now deleted). Its a petty silly individual comment about Donald Trump, the greatest man ever to live. Perhaps that makes it forbidden. But its going far over the top to pile on asking to block him over this.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section is not about him making that joke, it is about all actions he took to preserve it, and to silence discussion about it (compare e.g. the reaction any regular editor would have received if he had closed an ANI discussion about his actions three times, with the utter lack of reaction from most here). If he hadn't done any of the things he did after the MfD closed (and some before that), we wouldn't be here discussing this any more. Fram (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about ethics in aprils' fools journalism! Seriously though, he was trying to preserve the joke, not seeing it as affront to BLP. I don't see how this goes anywhere constructive.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He was trying to preserve the joke even after it had been resoundingly deleted at MFD, and trying to stop discussion of his actions. Considering his reaction here, he would probably do the same again in the future. The constructive thing would be that someone uninvolved sends him the message that such actions are not acceptable, and that he acknowledges this. The unconstructive thing is letting this just slip by, sending him the message that he can do this whenever he wants, and sending everyone else the message that we have different standards for admins / arbcom members / some editors in the inner circle on one side, and everyone else on the other side. Fram (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A standalone page was resoundingly deleted at MFD. We disagreed with the decision initially, especially since it this whole thing began as a pointy attempt to troll us. We see and agree with the wider community's viewpoint in the discussion that the standalone page was a problem, and we agreed with the deletion. The MFD was not a discussion about the content of a different page or a decision to forever ban the words from all Wikipedia pages ever. If you want to do that, BLPN is the appropriate place to start. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously permanent block and salt all user pages and the entire archives of the Signpost. Obviously Fram is quite correct that it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to make mild humorous topical references. The appropriate use of Wikipedia is to employ your userspace to host polemics attacking living people for being allegedly dishonest. It's clear my ten-year reign of terror of making humorous topical references needs to stop. I also apologize for kicking DHeyward's dog ten years ago, or whatever I did to piss him off to create a decade-long grudge and prompt him to follow me around the encyclopedia making disparaging comments about me, including the obviously not-BLP violating comparison of me to Joseph Goebbels, and to the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums for my sins against ethics in gaming journalism. #smallhandsghazi Gamaliel (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raising the allegation of offsite Gamergate canvassing may well be a sign that you're now part of the problem, Gamaliel. It's a tactic Mark Bernstein has used and we all know he is part of the problem and indeed has done similar things to those of which he accuses others. Perhaps just back down from this, revert your post-MfD edits that some claim are point-y, and everyone let it go. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of No Personal Attacks, I have indeed, on several occasions, brought attention to offsite Gamergate canvassing. These were not "allegations." Allegations are claims offered without proof, or at least claims that are capable of doubt. No one can doubt Gamergate’s extensive history of offsite coordination of its attacks through social media and through Wikipedia. No one has ever doubted them. They have been extensively reported, and in any case we have all seen them. A short block for incivility and a lousy sense of humor might give Sitush a chance to spend some more time with his dog, whom Gamaliel evidently kicked along with DHeyward's, while reminding everyone that Wikipedia's pillars are intended to apply to Wikipedians without exception. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expect an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee to respond to good-faith concerns raised by several community members about their behavior with something better than this kind of petulant tu quoque finger-pointing. For crying out loud, Gamaliel, at least try to pretend that you have something other than contempt for site policies and those who are interested in seeing them followed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take site policies very seriously. I've done years of work enforcing BLP policies in articles, on noticeboards, and through edit history redaction. I take the concerns of serious members of the community who express real concerns in a civil manner quite seriously, such as the concern brought up by JzG quoted by Andreas above. I do not take politically-motivated attempts at hijacking those policies to score points against people who perceive me to be their ideological opponent seriously. I do not take Gamergate editors stirred up by a thread on reddit seriously. I do not take editors who call me a Nazi or who use their userpage to attack living people seriously when they claim to be concerned about BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A necessary precondition of a "good-faith concern" is good faith. Is there any hereabouts? I could have sworn I saw it around here somewhere! Maybe it fell between the cushions, or maybe is saw the Gamergate crowd and slipped out, but there is no good faith in evidence here. No sensible observer could think for a moment that this joke was a BLP violation, any more than the New Yorker cover was, or the headlines of newspapers from here to Cairo. There's no tu quoque anywhere ’round here, either, though partem latinitatis aut intelligentiae aerem circum hoc tollebit. Anyway, tu quoque finger pointing is too redundant. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the thread I found on Reddit was pretty insulting to all sides of this dispute. But I'm sure there are other forums that I didn't look at besides WikiInAction. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passive aggressive comments show you still do not understand what you did wrong and therefore you will stop doing it. You are failing to grasp very basic standards of editor behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—this is silly and way out of proportion. Tony (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, but support a warning that continuing to revert editors undoing these BLP violations will result in a block for edit-warring. This is an unnecessary escalation, and administrator action is clearly not needed yet. But it is problematic that an ArbCom member thinks it's appropriate to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for political satire, and it boggles the mind that he doesn't understand why people are differentiating between harmless jokes and making fun of the physical appearance of a political candidate. The difference should be very clear. We can't prominently feature such satire while remaining neutral. ~ RobTalk 13:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Signpost is independent of the WMF, and doesn't pretend to speak for Wikipedia. It is community journalism. People publish opinion pieces in it; Fram did so some months ago, as I recall (and a great piece it was). It's not expected to be neutral. --Andreas JN466 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Signpost is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which The Signpost must operate - which include WP:NOT and WP:BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, but it takes a bit more than one person edit-warring to establish that it has fallen foul of those standards. And as I said above, if you want to apply WP:NOT to every page hosted on Wikipedia.org, you'll have to delete all essays, the village pump, and all article talk pages as well. For Pete's sake, WP:NOT specifically says, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Well, the Signpost is a "community newspaper". Andreas JN466 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please see WP:3RRNO - Clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions are not edit warring. Restoration of material so redacted, is, and is also a violation of BLP. W.r.t WP:NOT, please see my previous answer above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. --Andreas JN466 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Editors are requested to consider alternatives. This does not, however, affect that BLP redactions, where clearly identified, and made in good faith, are not edit warring. NOTE: I think perhaps the other editors here might have indulged our discussion enough; I am happy to call a halt, with an agreement to disagree, perhaps pending a WP:BLPN or MfD filing, or continue on my Talk page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)Thanks, but my op-ed was clearly about Wikipedia. The deleted page, not so much... I don't mind that the Signpost has an opinion about Wikipedia-related matters, it may present opinions, positions, criticism, ... but that is hardly relevant here. As far as I know, Trump is not a Wikipedia- or WMF-related subject though. And, of course, the main problem is not that the page was written and published, but how Gamaliel reacted to criticism and deletion of it. Judging from his response above, he still sees nothing wrong with what he did and reacts completely over the top. Fram (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole premise of the April Fools thing was that Jimmy Wales would be Trump's running mate, based on his involvement in Lessig's presidential campaign a while back, and people riffed on that. (But okay, you say that aspect is not your main concern anyway.) Andreas JN466 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Tony1. --Andreas JN466 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When I closed the above thread I thought the incident was further in the past, I did not realize it has been so recently repeated. As such I am reversing my closure. I really did not expect that. HighInBC 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: There was no BLP violation. At the most, it was a bad joke. The offending page was deleted, per consensus. The Signpost publishes opinions, of which this was one. If someone didn't find it funny, that's fine - nobody expects everyone to agree with all opinions in the Signpost. As to the admin actions, Gamaliel did not cover himself in glory here, but the misuse of admin tools is not serious enough for any action. I will just comment that Gamaliel is not doing himself any favours by pretending that he did nothing wrong. A bit of self-awareness is in order. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      A "bad joke" that consisted of fabricating things about a living person. Strange how that keeps getting missed by some. The Signpost publishes...things, they still must adhere to BLP policy. If the consensus is that BLP doesn't apply to opinions, oh boy do I have some fun to get in to. Sorry, I know I've made this point to you before, but a blanket "There was no BLP violation" is simply incorrect based on policy. Arkon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Signpost article, still up, which states that Trump has selected Jimmy Wales as his running mate. That is "fabricating things about a living person". I assume you will be putting that article up for deletion as well? I also look forward to you trawling through The Signpost archives to delete all April Fools articles ever written. Do feel free to waste your time if you wish. In the meantime, I will stick to my opinion that it was not a BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OTHERSTUFFEXISTS amiright? Your opinion is yours to keep, even if it's counter to actual policy. Arkon (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point to [299], which Gamaliel has repeatedly inserted. I do not believe Trump has ever threatened to sue Wikipedia over an image of his anatomy. To me this is a BLP violation. It doesn't matter if there is a humorous intent. If editors think some BLP violations are funny and thus should not be violations, they should try to amend our policyto allow that. There is also the (minor) misuse of admin tools to keep this version live. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support block and desysop - okay, it was just a joke, right? We have community processes to deal with such things, like WP:BLP and WP:MFD and such. The thing is we went through those processes, and the community stated in multiple places that this material was not acceptable, it crossed a line. The thing to do here was to have said "okay, I made an inappropriate joke and you guys called me on it, I won't do it again, let's move on." And then maybe some people have a chuckle about it, but everyone moves on. But that's not what Gamaliel did. Gamaliel edit-warred to restore the material, recreated it in his user space, and most egregiously of all he used admin tools to perform actions that he knew were against consensus and where he was obviously WP:INVOLVED. And he's continuing to do so at least per HighInBC's comment above, and his "small hands" page is still redlinked from his user page. What differentiates this from WP:LEVEL2? That it was a joke? I respect Gamaliel, a lot actually, but this is too far. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not realize that redlink was still there, I have removed it. The only "admin action" I took here was a routine protection of a user subpage which is transcluded to my main userpage, a frequent vandal target. I have also done this with other subpages unrelated to this matter. I did not "recreate" anything in my user space, I made a humorous reference to this ANI thread and nothing more. It was a joking reference to myself which said that I had small hands. I deleted it because it was submitted to MFD and I didn't want any more drama. I have every right to use my userspace to make reference to things that happen to myself. The words "small hands" have not been banned from the entirety of Wikipedia, otherwise using that logic we would never be able to employ the phrases "birth certificate", "October surprise", or "blue dress". Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, what was dealt with in community processes was not the joke per se, but the existence of a related dummy page in Wikipedia space that was not clearly identified as an April Fools' joke. Because that was a reasonable point, the page was deleted. Nobody restored it, and your assertion that Gamaliel did is untrue. The community has not anywhere expressed a consensus that the joke itself, clearly identified as an April Fools' joke, and riffing on a theme that's been widely discussed in the mainstream press, is a BLP violation. Andreas JN466 16:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is one of those cases where similar behaviour by a non-admin would have received quick no-questions-asked block a while ago. Obviously ANI won't be able to achieve consensus on any sanctions, even though at least some kind of warning/admonishment would be quite appropriate. On a different note, I commend the people who raised this issue, and prevented repeated attempts to shove the whole thing under a blanket with quick closing.--Staberinde (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If admins engaged in similar behavior to some of the people demanding my head (once again I bring people's attention to the "fuck right off" comment, the comparison of myself to Goebbles, and the anti-Jimbo userpage polemic) nobody would be attempting to shove their behavior under a blanket and we'd all be outraged about admin abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I recall quite a few "Fuck right off" comments from admins, shall I try to dig them up? As for the rest of your deflection, DHeyward has asked you to provide diffs or stop casting aspersions. Failure to do so is also something us normal folks would be blocked for. Arkon (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • An admin I thought very highly of was desyopped solely for a similar comment to the one you made. I responded to DHey above now; I initially missed his request in this wall of text. He does like to write about me, you know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, per earlier comments, The Signpost may be independent of the WMF, but it is not independent of the en.Wiki community, its publisher, which has set standards within which The Signpost must operate - which include WP:NOT and WP:BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respectively disagree -- in that we ought to value a free and independent press within our context -- that's the mission we give The Signpost. Indeed, from its very first issue The Signpost made clear: "Since this is not in the article namespace, guidelines such as "no ownership of articles", and particularly "no original research", will not necessarily apply." — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really disappointed in Gamaliel...he knows better and his position is such that we expect better.--MONGO 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, support warning as per BU Rob13. This blew up to extreme propositions, but I don't want to see this hitting NYT, WSJ, FOX News, etc. I think it's rather unfair to suggest that those concerned are Trump supporters with agendas; try replacing "Trump" with the public figure of your choice. My only "agenda" here is maintaining BLP. It's frankly irrelevant who the subject of this is; Wikipedia is simply the wrong venue for political satire, and there are legitimate concerns here. GABHello! 17:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Support block and consider vote of no confidence in Gamaliel as an arbitrator, in deference to the large number of editors who don't consider this worthy of a desysop. Ivanvector has it right. This was deplorable. April Fool's is one day; we have had massive discussions in the past about disruptive April Foolery, and in the past the Signpost created a special one-day edition that was then replaced by a regular edition with errors statement. In this instance, a sitting Arb used his bully pulpit as editor of the Signpost to subvert our entire purpose, edit warred, abused his admin rights, and insulted and threatened the editor who was brave enough to call out the BLP violation. American politics - or Gamaliel's or anyone else's personal views about potential candidates in US elections - are explicitly not an exception to our policies of neutrality and avoiding insulting living people. The reverse, in fact, by Arbcom fiat. I was desysopped for less. Where is Bishzilla. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Whimsical Delight

    Ok, folks! We've got 12,500 wiki words -- and more every minute! -- about Donald Trump’s small hands and The Signpost. This is wacky. .

    It’s also dumb, and it's not contributing to the project. In point of fact, it's providing a lot of comfort to the project’s detractors, who now will always be able to point to this episode as a wonderful example of the foolishness of editing Wikipedia and of the zaniness of the zealots and PR agencies who do. It's no good making a noise, gentlemen. The dean ain’t a-coming down tonight. (I note in passing that I here managed an unforced assonance on "z", which compels quiet kvelling.)

    Can we close this before it gets even more out of hand? If people really want to make a federal case of this, ArbCom is thataway ==>. I’m sure that would be lots of fun! Alternatively, if someone has time on their hands, they could take this whole Gamergate mob to AE for wikihounding, canvassing, and a lousy sense of humor and proportion. That’s the great thing about Wikipedia: cop cars can become clown cars in an instant. I have no idea how the constabulary there would sort out the culpable from the pedestrians who had the misfortune to be passing by. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [300] --Andreas JN466 16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose a TBAN of Akron

    His complaint being vindicated IN NO WAY excuses his vulgar behavior. The fact that he got as pissed off as he did about this whole thing tells me that he's too close to the subject. I propose he be given a topic ban of U.S. politics.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess this would be a topic ban on me as well as I told Gamaliel on his talk page that I, indeed, have small hands. And I don't understand why saying someone had small hands would be offensive. #SmallHandPride Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Every editor will need to have their hands measured before this discussion gets closed. Because our brains are too small for detection.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The language used by Akron is against WP:CIVIL and therefore should certainly not be tolerated. However, I have not seen any evidence this was disruptive of the topic area where it is proposed he should be banned from. DHeyward is correct in suggesting it should be raised at AE with diffs, where a short-term block might be considered. DrChrissy (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Vulgarity as such is against no rules, as I understand Keilana recently reminded us. Are his edits in the topic area problematic? No diffs have been presented to that effect, and they are required for an allegation about editorial behavior. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am tired of the hyperbole around this purported BLP violation. It is a joke, and it references a meme that is in wide currency beyond Wikipedia. Trump may be comicaly sensitive about it, but genie is out of the bottle and well past any hope of control. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A reminder and a suggestion

    I'd like to remind everyone that the Signpost is a collaborative effort. The buck stops with me. I'm willing to be the target of everyone's ire and suffer the consequences. But the idea that everything written in this article or in the entire Signpost somehow represents my personal viewpoints or is an attempt to push my ideology is nonsense. It’s insulting to the many other Signpost editors and contributors (including Fram, one of the loudest voices against me above) to say they do not write from their own minds or have their own viewpoints. The April Fools’ story in the Signpost was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible. Three authors are listed in this story and as many as twelve people contributed in some form or another. They all have different opinions and political persuasions. This was a group effort, not a secret ideological attack from me, as some would contend, a charge that should not be taken seriously. In fact, it wasn’t even my idea to use Trump in our April Fools’ story in the first place.

    It’s becoming a trend for some people who view me as their ideological antagonist to claim that the Signpost is “my mouthpiece” because I wrote something they didn’t like. It’s the mouthpiece of everyone who contributes to the Signpost each week, and it’s your mouthpiece too. Those who complain about having certain viewpoints represented either forget or ignore or do not know that their voices are welcome too. If some viewpoint doesn’t appear in the Signpost, it’s not that we’re trying to push a different one, it’s that nobody wrote it yet. You are welcome to do so. Hate April Fools’ Day and think it should be banned from Wikipedia? Do you think there’s too much swearing on Wikipedia? Do you disagree with something someone wrote in the Signpost? Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way? Write about it and we will publish it once it goes through our regular editorial processes, which are collaborative and involve the participation of numerous editors who are not me. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of complaining about the alleged “agenda” of the Signpost, come set the “agenda” of the Signpost yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you say "The April Fools’ story in the Signpost was not designed as an ideological attempt to attack a presidential candidate, it was designed to pair Wikipedia’s biggest celebrity with the biggest celebrity in the news right now, at least in America, and be as loud and as over the top as possible.", when the actual page in question contained nothing of the sort. In fact, it stated that said person threatened to sue Wikipedia. Arkon (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    YEAH! YOU'VE GOT HIM AKRON! HAHA GAMALIEL WE GOT YOU NOW! YOUR SIDE PAGE LINK WAS UNRELATED! COMMENCE WATERBOARDING!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That dummy subpage was created solely to make a Signpost template work in that April Fools' story. That dummy subpage is now deleted. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about the sidepage. I'm talking about the original MFD that was linked in my original post. The one that started all of this. Edit: Sorry got you a Milowent's responses mixed and matched. The page in question had text, that had nothing to do with the actual April fools story (according to you above), but just happened to also say that a living person was threatening the sue Wikipedia. Is that suppose to be somehow better? Arkon (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want to disagree with a presidential candidate who isn’t Trump and it involves Wikipedia in some way? - Have the editors who have raised objections to this year's series of April Fools articles not been sufficiently clear? Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX; not even The Signpost. We are not a publisher of political satire. Suggesting that we might apply the blowtorch to another living person, albeit of a different political persuasion, as a way of striking a balance is just incredibly tone deaf. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I worded that very carefully and yet here is the misunderstanding I wished to avoid. Please assume good faith here. I have no intention of publishing non-Wikipedia related jokes or satire when it is not April Fools' Day. (In fact we didn't even approach our April Fools' Day story intending to write political satire - Jimbo was our main target and I think he got the worst there, but nobody is complaining about that.) I wanted to address the contention that the Signpost was only publishing things from one political viewpoint. Obviously I would not publish political satire aimed at Obama next week to give the other side "equal time", but I do want to show that we are ready to publish viewpoints from that other side if they are about Wikipedia in some way, such as columns against proposed internet legislation by the president. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What did the text on the page that was deleted at MFD, that brought us here, say that had to do with Jimmy? Arkon (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It said that Wikipedia, run by Jimmy Wales, had defamed our Lordship Donald J. Trump's elegant appendages.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Global IP rangeblock

    I just got caught in a global IP rangeblock made by @Masti: over on Meta. The message I got telling me about this (when trying to rollback anti-Semitic vandalism on the RefDesk) and then when I tried to post an unblock request on my talkpage was "Permission error


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Jump to: navigation, search


    You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:


    Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

    The block was made by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki vandalism: + leaky colo. 

    Start of block: 19:05, 6 April 2016
Expiration of block: 19:05, 6 October 2016

    You can contact Masti to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 188.29.164.122, and the blocked range is 188.29.164.0/23. Please include all above details in any queries you make."

    Now, firstly it is a bit rich to leave established editors with no way to request an unblock on their home wiki, secondly it is even richer to block established users with no effort to communicate with them directly, and thirdly, the IP range is for mobile services from 3, one of the major UK mobile providers, so is likely to affect many good-faith users. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Without commenting on the merits of the block or its validity, a /23 block only covers 512 IP addresses, and is not likely to affect many people. It may be that you just got unlucky with this one. /23 is very targeted, and should not affect most (or even many) of that network's mobile providers. That does not say that the block is justified, or that you don't have a complaint, but rather that the portion of your complaint that it affects an entire ISP, or even that it affects a large number of addresses, isn't true. ---Jayron32 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it affected an entire ISP, or a large number of addresses (I wouldn't pretend to have the faintest idea how many addresses it did affect). I did say it's likely to affect a large number of people, as every time someone comes online they are likely to have a different address, and so, over 6 months it is likely to affect many. Even if it could be guaranteed to "only" affect 512 people, to leave them without any on-wiki way of appealing is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped a notification on Masti's TP for you. A ping is not considered sufficient notification due to the notorious way pings can fail. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I change the block to unregistered users only. So You should be able to edit now. Sorry for the problems @DuncanHill: Masti (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I am now global IP block exempt too. I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable! DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    However both the big red text at the top of the page and orange box you see when you edit do say "must notify them on their user talk page" so the reasons are largely moot unless it's a discussion over the reasons. Perhaps the point of confusion is the ""discussion about an editor" bit, but that's normally taken to mean if you discussion includes commentary on the editor, they should be notified. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the notices have been there so long that they merge into the background. I also rather think they did not always specify talkpage. Masti was well aware that I was unhappy with the situation as I had emailed him via Meta, mentioning that this was my home wiki. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But they have to actually try to edit while using the IP, so in reality it's not particularly likely to affect that many registered editors unless the IP range happens to be used by a some large company (since it's a mobile IP not very likely) or something (I wonder why such a small range was blocked and whether there's something to do with the assignment policy which means people only tend to get a small number in which case it could be certain editors would have gotten it a lot or it's very rare). While there are quite a few anonymous contributions from that range to en.wikipedia, non registered editors always run the risk they will be blocked if others misuse their IPs and a /23 isn't considered sufficiently small that it may be justified if there are problems. I see some mention of leaky colo which I presume means leaky colocation, so the number may be slightly higher but then again perhaps this leak colo falls in to the open proxy arena (like a webhost) so they aren't allow to edit from that anyway. (Blocking a whole countries proxyy tends to be the more controversial thing.) Note that ultimately if you have problems editing from an IP and that IP was blocked for good reason, you should be complaining to your ISP for failing to have decent abuse policies or failing to enforce them as you're I presume paying your ISP for service which they aren't able to provide. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to edit from an account, not as an IP. Apparently registered users also always run the risk that they will be blocked for the deeds of others and with no on-wiki appeal. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I might interject, what are we hoping to accomplish here? Masti has converted the global block to anon only in response to DuncanHill's request. DH was granted global IPBE so this won't occur again. Furthermore, I removed the local block in less than 15 minutes from DH's email to me. (~00:29 UTC April 7) It sounds to me that things have been handled correctly and promptly. DH, if you are dissatisfied with Masti's block, that's an issue that you will have to raise on meta. Mike V • Talk 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruption from previously banned IP editor "Claudia"

    IP editor 115.188.178.77, who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has been blocked at least three times for disruptive editing and obnoxious behaviour, including under the IP address 122.62.226.243.in 2012[301], 2013 and 2014.

    She continues to wage a crusade through talk pages against the highly respected New Zealand historian James Belich. Past tirades are here, here, here, an in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, here. Her renewed attack is at this talk page; she (again) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[302] I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.

    Out of nowhere she has launched an attack on another respected historian [303]; she has also made claims about another historian's conclusions [304] which in that thread I quickly proved to be completely fabricated and wrong. This echoes her past attacks at historian Michael King, prior to her last 12-month block.

    Her past behaviour has included faking citations (see this complaint); her recent efforts have included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see this and this thread.) Despite her past blocks her edits tend to be inflammatory and trollish and she has a long history of inserting demonstrably false claims within historical material that reflect her strong anti-Maori outlook. She is highly disruptive, creates loads of work for other editors to clean up behind her. And her trail of long talk page posts are usually unsigned. She has not learned to be collaborative and has not modified her behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may add to this. I have encountered Claudia on many occasions. She/he is so persistent, unreasonable, and closed to any attempt of a civilised discussion that my policy has become to take a page off my watchlist once Claudia starts to take an interest in it. Schwede66 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Claudia has been editing since at least July 2009, and the question of how to manage her edits has been discussed sporadically since September 2010. Her edits have not improved since her year-long block in November 2014. I think a ban from articles on New Zealand history, broadly construed, would be appropriate.-gadfium 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a couple of blocks to the table. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And added the BLPN report.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Date Report Note
    1 September 2010 ANI/19th century New Zealand history
    5 December 2012 ANI/Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars Blocked 31 hours
    6 January 2013 Blocked for 48 hours
    14 January 2013 ANI/IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV
    10 May 2013 3RR/122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab Blocked for two weeks
    2 July 2013 Blocked for one month
    13 August 2013 ANI/User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please
    7 November 2014 ANI/Well-meaning but clueless IP editor Blocked for one year
    1 April 2016 BLPN/Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)
    In July 2013 Claudia was also blocked for a month by User:Moriori for similar behaviour. [305] That's four blocks I'm aware of, but still no modification of editing behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A recent interaction with Claudia, to show the level of aggravation she creates, is at Talk:Treaty of Waitangi#Proclamations 1840 style. BlackCab (TALK) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the singlemindedness of this person in their attacks on this historian and that their editing is restricted to topics about NZ history, a topic ban would amount to a site ban. Given their disruptiveness, that might actually be a better option. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure a ban on the topic of NZ history would do the job. Claudia has also launched her attacks on conventional historical narrative (complete with conspiracy theories) at the talk pages of such articles as Māori King Movement, Parihaka, Waitara, New Zealand and Treaty of Waitangi, which she could conceivably argue are not articles on NZ history per se. She was given very firm guidance at the time of the last 12-month ban on how to conduct herself, but is in fact doing exactly the same thing. Unless the topic ban was for anything related to New Zealand, I would prefer a complete block, and a longer one this time. BlackCab (TALK) 03:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Claudia does seem to have a couple of other interests: boats and bicycles, from memory (and a cursory look at her recent contributions). I don't know enough about those subjects to know whether or not there is any value to her contributions, but at least those subjects don't seem to be as full of BLP-violation potential as New Zealand history.
    I agree with Gadfium that a topic ban would be approriate - at least as a first step. Maybe a permanent topic ban from the history of New Zealand, or anything to do with the Māori people, or any biographies of living persons - or any combination of the three, up to and including all of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has not changed her editing behaviour since the last block. This edit, summarising/paraphrasing the first paragraph on this webpage, confirms my suspicion as to her identity, at the same time confirming that many edits originate from her own work. This is certainly suggestive of extensive POV pushing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DerbyCountyinNZ, is that related to the bulk of material on the Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories article? Similar self-published authors involved here. BlackCab (TALK) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, maybe just coincidence. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd honestly guess that it's not her site - Claudia appears ignorant of even basic Wiki markup while whoever produced that page seems to at least know their way around a content management / web page creator program. I'd just put that down to Claudia being unable to tell good sources from bad - she's had that problem before (once I had trouble finding any evidence that one of her sources even existed other than as an Internet document, because she used a garbled version of its name that the only other occurences then findable in Google all traced back to one white-supremacist blog). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in outing Claudia, but that website and that ideology probably help feed her conspiracy theories that lead to the denigration of Belich, King, Orange, Dalton, O'Malley and every researcher ever employed by the Waitangi Tribunal. BlackCab (TALK) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please let us not stoop to outing. The IP's ideology is not the problem; the IP's long-term disruptive editing style is the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User warned. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sanjayarora1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a clear legal threat in summary of this edit: here Jim1138 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been warned and notified of this thread. Let's see what they do now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    European Graduate School - the return of Claudioalv

    Hi All. I had mentioned that Claudioalv and i were talking off line, to talk through his COI issues more candidly. He has now posted a disclosure on his user page.

    This was one of a few options he and I had discussed for his next steps in Wikipedia. In light of his choice and the disclosure he has made, I am posting the following diffs for the community's consideration. I had also provided these to Claudioalv and given him my thoughts on them.

    • here Claudioalv says it is his understanding that what Guy said about him is "defamation"
    • here he says to Guy "On the opposite, you still refusing to look at the 2015 Accreditation in Malta and you used this talk page and the EGS article to defame the School by abusing your power as an administrator (for example I was blocked without any reason and now I am thinking that other users that you call sockpuppetry had the same treatment)."
    • here he says about Guy's editing: " In legalese I would call that bad faith and defamation"
    • here he says that Guy has "maliciously built an article in order to defame the EGS"
    • here he says "Waiting 30 days is just postpone the issue that an editor is defaming EGS by keep posting false information."
    • here he says to Guy "You are here to defame the school and not to write a neutral Enciclopedia and because the Wikipedia weak policy you have been successful"
    • here he says to Guy "By refusing to recognize Maltese law is showing that your conduct is malicious, and your only purpose here is defaming EGS"

    I am not sure if he still "owns" these statements or would retract them; I believe he understands Wikipedia somewhat differently now than he did before we started emailing offline. But I will leave that for him to say, and of course the community will do with all this as it will. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The references to defamation are a clear implied legal threat and need to be removed.
    I did not create the article. The edit history shows that I have made exactly two edits to the article, almost a decade apart. Two.
    In point of fact, I would be astounded if the creator was anyone other than the school itself. The initial version makes no mention of the accreditation issues even though it pre-dates the accreditation of some courses by Malte, so was at a time when no accreditation was apparently in place anywhere. As I think others have said, nobody cares about this article other than them (as a marketplace) and a few Wikipedians who are not entirely delighted with commercial entities abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Of the two, the more motivated by far is the school. That is why they have sent so many WP:SPAs to whitewash the article over the years.
    Finally, does anybody here genuinely think that legitimate schools need to hire attorneys to bully people into calling them accredited? Srsly? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that at least one editor has weighed in , I will say that in my view these statements are clear violations of WP:NLT - especially given their repetition and the fact that person who made them is an attorney semi-representing the school - and Claudioalv should be indefinitely blocked for making them. They can address whether they wish to retract these statements in their unblock request. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of WP:NLT, as I understand it, is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening potentially expensive off-wiki legal action. In this case the mention of the user's position in a law firm and their relationship with a lawyer retained by the subject is certainly intimidating, and it's hard to believe this is not intentional. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Jytdog for your explanation about Wikipedia Policy. It was very helpful. As I have already written you, I was not aware about the rules, policy, and regulations in Wiki. It was my understanding that by reading the terms of Use I could write in the talk page (actually I have never edited any article).
    I apologyze with Guy if my affirmation (what I said are personal opinions and do not reflect EGS statements) made above constitute legal threat and WIki does not allow it. It is clearly stated in its policy, but I did not read it. I retract them and I am fine to remove them. I do not know how to do it, but if the community does help me, it would be great.
    hatting OFFTOPIC part of this
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    However, I do find that the School does not merit to be defined as questionable or pasty (as Guy did), because of the history of the article. I think that Guy does not know the School, but by defining the school in this way he is not an independent administrator who should look over the article(in fact, he reverted the article half an hour late a different ad update it with the Maltese accreditation). That was the reason why I opened the ANI. He would never change his opinion, nor if the President of the U.S. would say that the school is accredited. I was familiar with the EGS accreditation since January 2016 and the history dates back to years. Not being recognized in Texas, does not mean that the school confer degrees mill. This is the general understanding by reading the article and this is not true. I have also sent to @Jtddog the full official maltese accreditation. It was conferred in February 2016 (before the school was an Higher Education School and now it is a University with the recent maltese accreditation). There are no publications about the recent U accreditation because it is recent (however some Maltese article mention the 2016 accreditation, see Rfc in the EGS talk page). I do not understand why Wiki policy does not allow to say that the school is accredited in Malta(this info relies on an official governmental institute documentation and even if it is primary it is verifiable on their website) and we need to wait for an independent article. I think this is discrimination, because Wiki relies on Texas official Department of Education info and does not rely on the Maltese official governmental accreditation. By and large this was the argument I raised. I do not think administrators who looked over the article are idiots, nor I think I am. I do agree with Jztdog: "nobody cares about this article other than them and a few Wikipedians". But what about if Wiki defines your business "pasty" or "questionable"? Would you be happy or would you try to say the contrary if you have good reason to say that? EGS is not my business, and I did not promote them. I was just aware about the Malta accreditation (and the fact that two U.S. states does not mention anymore EGS in any list) and I spent my free time raising an argument on Wiki. I was probably wrong in "how" to raise this argument because I am not an expert of Wiki. But the content of my argument is based on official documents. I know that you disagree until an article publication is made and I still do not understand this rule. But I appreciate your time in clarifying me the Wiki policy. Thanks.

    Claudioalv (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't seem to understand. Texas says that EGS degrees are nto acceptable. To list any institution's degrees as unacceptable is rare and notable. Of course EGS disputes this. There is enough copmmentary in the (non-RS) discusison boards showing serious problems with EGS courses and teaching, that I, personally, would not override the presumption that this unusual fact should be included in the article. Now I myself would not have created an article on this subject, because I do not think EGS is a significant school, but EGS seemingly decided to use Wikipedia as part of its marketing; on Wikipedia we absolutely do not offer a subject any form of editorial control and it is pretty much inevitable that well-sourced criticism will be included. If the subject also engages in a years-long campaign to remove criticism then the bar to including material proposed by the subject in rebuttal to independent sources showing the subject to be less than stellar, increases. It's a variant of the Streisand effect. Wikipedia articles are warts and all, and this is foundational policy. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, this ANI thread is not for discussing the content dispute. I have hatted content-related discussion. So Claudialv has retracted the legal threats. The community can determine if that is sufficient to close this, or if Claudioalv should still be indeffed for having made them at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or as a disruptive WP:SPA on a mission. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I want to edit an other article. My roommate is listed in Wiki with her husband surname even if they divorced some years ago. Divorce certificate is not listed anywhere, she tried to update her article, but she found this task very challanging and the current status is not longer true. I hope that this time I do not have to disclose that I am her roommate, nor that I am not going to charge her for editing a Wiki article. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then leave a note on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal for removal of ban

    Consensus is clearly in favor of lifting the editing restriction in light of significant improvement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, according to a January 2015 consensus, I was banned from creating BLPs. I at that time massly created poor quality stubs BLPs and even articles about non-notable persons; in rush. Experience has showed me that my actions were wrong. Since then I had promoted the following articles:

    In recent times, I also did not have any conflict with any user about BLPs. It is my earnest request to have my ban revoked. One of the reason is that since now is my holidays, I want to promote more DYKs. I also understand that I will not repeat my behaviour. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I also urge to look at my Contributions. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Automotive IP user

    An user with different ip addresses wants to use the words "utility vehicle" in lots of articles. It has been discussed at WikiProject Automobiles, and almost everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. That didn't stop him from edit warring to the point that three pages were protected yesterday. Today he continued with the same type of edits in other articles: 202.94.72.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) And when I reverted his edits he begun reverting edits by me and by another user that has reverted his, including several edits in articles unrelated to the "utility vehicle" dispute: 116.212.233.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) All the ip addresses he uses seem to be located in Perth. ⛐Boivie (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, yes. The IP editor is reverting random edits from all those he deems to have been against his utility vehicle crusade. I suggest IP block Australia, that should fix it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have utility vehicles in Australia, we have utes. Blackmane (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    New ip again 49.199.120.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if there is anything further that can be done?
    I'm assuming a huge range block can't work, as blocking an entire ISP's customers is not what wikipedia wants to do.
    Protecting articles might be hard, as this guy will just go to wherever isn't protected.
    What happens next? I'm assuming he will get bored and move on to abusing people on facebook or something equally mature. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Special:Contributions/49.199.76.170 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted... Zad68 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are things that can be done. Preference is to start with the lowest-impact tools and see if that does the trick. Zad68 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fundamental problem here is that the world fails to use the correct terminology for utes, instead calling them pickup trucks. Wikipedia should promulgate a new policy mandating all Americans to start using the word ute, as God intended. Until then, we could try an edit filter or semi protection. Or play whack-a-mole. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure my suggestion of range blocking all of Australia, would be equally effective. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could refrain from making continuous personal attacks on talk pages and maybe you would improve your chances of having a reasonable discussion rather than feeling the need to make 'suggestions' to administrators. Also a general attempt to understand the issue rather than relating it back to an unrelated point may also be of some value 49.183.142.79 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wot? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IP from Perth. Clearly they are concerned about the impending Australia range block. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I read this as "please block this IP as well". Was that not what they were saying? Guy (Help!) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, perhaps they were saying please block my entire ISP ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be, not sure what bearing it has on the point at hand however 49.183.142.79 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is a resonable discussion has already been held and most participants including those from Australia and New Zealand (like me) already understand the issues. This discussion appears to have reached some sort of consensus, or at the very least there's no consensus for your changes. Despite that you're edit warring to make these unsupported changes and if you were using an account you'd probably already be indef blocked. But since you're edit warring with multiple IPs, either we have to block the entirety of Perth Optus users or use WP:RBI. From now own don't be surprised if this applies to your comments anywhere including here since you're still block evading, so they can be removed and you ignored, not because there has not been a resonable discussion or because people don't understand or because they are going off point. You're Australian so I guess we can make some allowances for you being slow on the uptake but even so.... Ducks Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps an edit filter to stop this? I'm going to send my army of drop bears at you, Nil. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One point that I was slightly concerned about... Are editors that continue to revert these edits by the IP editor subject to 3RR? I'm quite happy to revert this guy 24/7, if I know that I won't be subject to any sanctions for making 20+ reverts per day on a single article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT3RR: "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." The IP was blocked for an extensive period of time. IP's are users even if they switch IP. Feel free to revert away. Although you might get bored before they do, I lived in Perth for 3 years and it is singularly the most boring place in the world I have been to. And this is after living in Thetford. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block Special:Contributions/60.230.206.154 as per the above discussion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    and Special:Contributions/49.183.142.79 (and probably a million new IPs who perform the same ignorant edits) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated recreation of deleted article

    These users keep recreating an article about Jin from BTS (band) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer)). Jin (Bangtan Boys) is their (they claim to be friends) fifth recreation since January. See their talk pages for a record of this. Some were redirected, and some were deleted. They have also both uploaded the same copyvio image on Commons. I think blocks may be needed to stop the constant recreation. Random86 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandal editing

    Could someone research User:31.149.155.204. There is a trail of questionable edits associated with this IP. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Couple of kids mucking about at a school in Alkmaar, NL, it would seem. (non-admin comment) Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a school IP. They've long stopped now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac

    I've tried to tell Legacypac that personal attacks are discouraged. It's been enough.

    I've warned him again and again.

    Then, he said that I must keep off his talk page, so I did. And one more:

    And I've warned him on the RfC page too. HighInBC told me that on my talk page that my conduct was sub-par and that I failed to assume AGF here. Well, the thing is after Legacypac says something like, "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." diff you simply can't assume good faith. (It - Drafts)
    Legacypac has a good history of personal attacks too, he got warned for one here.

    Some more baseless accusations with no proof:

    • Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other.
    • this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with
    • WV loves one way interaction bans.

    WV - Winkelvi, Ches - Chesnaught555
    Not to mention, Legacypac has a chronic problem with opposition, creating revenge threads on ANI for each of them, here, here and here. Also, to top it off, a beautiful piece of ad hominem attitude. Hope I've bored you enough. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ease up please QEDK. It has been great having you on my side in trying to get some points across, but we are now making progress. Legacypac has received a awful lot of criticism, sorry that you have received the reaction, but let's ease up and let the RfC have some air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Maybe if you were in my position, you'd say otherwise. We're making progress on the content side of it, yes but that is no reason to take me for granted, I am a human and I see no reason why I am repeatedly attacked even after I tried, again and again, to be the nice person in the whole incident. If he's received criticism, I trust it's for a reason. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment QEDK is spot on and I'm glad he provided examples that involve me because I would have done the same. I have been the subject of LP's attacks and sub-par behavior for quite some time. I've asked him to stop, I've warned him he needs to stop. There are others who have done the same and have also been the object of his uncivil behavior. He seems to think he's made of Teflon and continues without care. How long do we, as a community, have to take his abuse? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • QEDK: Your "troll" diff shows LP removing your comment from his talk page; your comment, in full, was "That's purposeful misinterpretation for ya.". Are you saying you were not trolling? The "wrestling a pig" diff shows LP removing his comment where he had written hyper-abbreviated nonsense to mimic your comment written in that style. Doing that is not ideal editor behavior but it's not that bad under the circumstances (why did you write that nonsense?). Johnuniq (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I prefer you stop your insinuation, I think everyone (except you i.e.) understood that I wasn't trolling and I've discussed it with specific detail (did you by any chance, miss the edit summaries?). I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment. You should know the actual substance of the whole situation before you take on your challenge. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You most certainly did make that remark. As well as the other one where you templated him/her. You know very well what he/she meant by temptating. I don't 100% understand your reply - to be fair. SQLQuery me! 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think everyone understood that you weren't trolling. It looked to me like you were trying to illicit a negative reaction. What starts out as a friendly conversation quickly devolved into you making accusations of bad faith. Someone interpreting things differently as you is not the same as "purposeful misinterpretation". Once you went to the accusations of bad faith you were reverted, to which you responded to with a template, which was reverted, and you gave another template. Is this a productive means of communication?
    Yes, Legacypac called you some names, but you are hardly without blame here. Attacking somebodies motives is at least as uncivil as name calling. My comment on your user page was meant to prepare you for the fact that both of your behaviour would be looked at if you felt the need to make a post about this here, I am glad you are comfortable with that. HighInBC 13:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SQL: When did I say that I did not? And my vocabulary is not well enough, so I guess I haven't come across the word, "temptating", maybe you can shed light on the matter. Also, there's a reason I templated him/her, I meant to warn him of the impending result and not to make rash decisions without thought. He, however, did not care.
    @HighInBC: I do not fear scrutiny. If the community thinks I assumed bad faith without reason or that I've been in the wrong multiple times, I shall pay the price. You don't need to keep reminding me of that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to very clearly understand the typo "temptating" to mean "templating". For two, in your rant, you made the statement "I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment.". It seems to be in reference to one of the diffs I linked - tho I am having a lot of trouble identifying what you are talking about. SQLQuery me! 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am just wondering what admin action you think should apply to legacy? You assumed bad faith, he called you a name, really it is not something I would block either of you for. It is certainly not something I would block one but not the other for. However I am involved enough in the underlying dispute that another admin can decide what to do, or what not to do. HighInBC 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not just you - I don't see what action could be taken here that benefits the encyclopedia, and holds to our policies. I guess, really really technically they could both be warned to behave better in the future? SQLQuery me! 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it calls for just a warning, and since anyone can give a warning here it is. Legacypac, please don't engage in name calling as it is against our policy. QEDK, please don't assume bad faith as it is also against our policy. I really don't know what benefit further action will result in. HighInBC 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See this [307]. This is the nonsense I was talking about. Also, I thought temptating was tempting but I could make no connection, thanks for shedding the light.
    Since both of you have been involved in previous disputes (typically on the other side), I prefer to not take my advice regarding this from you. The community can decide. Thanks, though. I believe a one-off wrong can be differentiated from repeated disgraceful behaviour, since 2 admins here clearly can't see the difference. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wish all these cats would stop reporting each other. If they can confine their...what's the word...mutual bitching? sniping? at each other to their talk pages, we'd all be better off. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly I've been banned from his talk page with a "Buzz off." *sigh* --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you don't understand Drmies, but we've tried to be nice, time and again. Yet, we are here again, despite all the effort, now all wasted on him. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "we've tried to be nice, time and again." Amen to that. It's as if no one cares about WP:CIVIL anymore, including admins who seem to be no longer taking it seriously (not pointing a finger at you, Drmies, I'm making a general observation). I understand telling editors they need to toughen up and/or just go about their business and not be so sensitive, but in the case of LP (and, frankly, another editor I can think of immediately) it's a continual thumb of the nose from him in the way of what's collegial and civil. He seems to simply no longer care that he's being unbelievably rude and attacking other editors and that behavior is impeding productive contributions, productive discussion, and productive solutions to problems. In other words: it's gone past being annoying, it's disruptive and destructive. My personal opinion about why he does it is because no one is doing anything about it and he's been allowed to continue in that vein repeatedly. Anyone even remotely familiar with behavior management could look at the unwanted, inappropriate behavior and attitude from LP in conjunction with the lack of reaction from admins and say: if there are no consequences, the message being sent is "please continue and escalate". And that's exactly what he's doing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to tell anyone to toughen up--but admins (if I can generalize) just get tired of this. The chain of diffs and insults is too complicated and tedious, and maybe iBans all around are the only solution, but then, who would want to enforce iBans, which are notoriously difficult to apply? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I strive for accuracy in communications and Internet troll fits QEDK's actions exactly. I have real life work to do today and wrestling with a pig is not on my priority list. I'm sorry if anything I said was misinterpreted as name calling. No one has ever been banned from my talk page, but I do remove personal attacks and nonsense from it as is my right. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • But your accuracy, then, leads to a personal attack. "Internet troll", when applied to a Wikipedia editor, means you don't believe the editor to be contributing to the project in good faith--but ANI is not a good forum if the case is not so easy to make, which I think is what's happening here as well. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legacypac you are often rude and accusatory in your interactions. I can very well see why QEDK has lost patience with you. 217.38.191.252 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies you are welcome to your idea of what trolling is, but that is not exactly my idea. My meaning is best summed up in the lead of Internet troll "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." There are part time trolls and even single troll type edits so saying an edit is trolling or the editor is acting like a troll does not imply all their activity falls into trolling. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For a great laugh, check out WV last userpage edit summary [308] compared to his posts in this thread. Looks like he is calling someone a troll to me. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no plausible way that QEDK could be called a troll. He started out complaining about specific actions by Legacypac (which have been reverted, per consensus). Furthermore, I see no plausible reading of LP's comments which does not constitute a stealthy attempt to rewrite policies on drafts. Now that the draft policy discussion is out in the open, QEDK, LP, and others should stop commenting on the former actions, but only comment on current actions (of which QEDK's here and LP's on the guidelines and on user talk pages deserve censure.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to someone as a troll on one occasion among a ton of edit summaries and talk page discussions where few to none such comments have taken place previously is not a good parallel for you to make, LP. Why? Because you personally attack other editors and call them names frequently. If your habit of doing so were not reality, Drmies wouldn't have pointed out to you what he did above. Indeed, I've never known him to just make such comments willy-nilly or without a good reason - he's very reluctant to make such accusations, in my experience. What's more, for you to say, in essence, "Look, they did it, so it's okay for me to do it, too!" is not a good defense. In fact, it's a very childish response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DrChrissy

    I hate to do this, but it looks like DrChrissy is on some sort of vendetta against me and has WP:WIKISTALKed me to the page Earth Similarity Index.

    For some background, DrChrissy is topic banned from GMO and alt med articles. The reasons for this are the account's combative attitude and the problems related to pseudoscience promotion at those delicate areas. I have tried many times to bury the hatchet with this account, and it just seems impossible. The account seems bound and determined to go on the attack.

    It was with some trepidation that I noticed the account followed me to an area I'm working on that is part of my professional expertise.

    Silence from DrChrissy for two days

    This is becoming a big distraction, and owing to DrChrissy's topic bans on other pages, I'm wondering if an administrator might get him/her to not attack me on discussion pages?

    Thanks,

    jps (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the collapsible boxes at the top of this page is "how to use this page" This clearly states New threads should carry an informative, neutral title. The title to this thread is clearly not neutral and is deliberately intended to Poison the well. DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unduly promote... Your opinion and how long ago was that. Come on jps don't try and muddy the discussion here by disqualifying the editors who take the time to speak. I tried to be fair here. This comment does no one a disservice but you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Spare me the crocodile tears. I know what your agenda is here and your attempts to be "fair" seem to include making mostly negative statements about me. If this is what you call trying to be fair, I would prefer it if you voluntarily stayed away from conversations that I start which do not involve you. I'll do the same for you. Fair enough? jps (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually jps my agenda was to look at this and be fair. I looked at the diffs and saw nothing that supported your allegations and supposedly no one else did either. I wanted to be neutral and to assume the best faith with you and Dr Chrissy so suggested you both walk away You asked for input you got it but you mischaracterized that as potential stalking. I have no idea if Dr Chrissy is following you around but there's nothing in the thread that indicates he is. You did canvass another editor. At the same time I suggested you both drop this; that's fair. I could have made other suggestions based on what you've said here; I didn't. I'm sorry you see my actions this way and are reacting with nastiness. I have no fight with you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Comment Jps is deliberately misleading the community here. I watch the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. At 00:12, 4 April, jps posted I could use some more eyes from outsiders referring to the Earth Similarity Index article - here[309] Fourteen hours later, at 14:39, 4 April, my first edit to the article was here [310] In other words, I was responding to the request by jps, nor stalking or hounding. This is a vexatious thread and a total waste of the communities time. It should be dealt with accordingly. DrChrissy (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Butting in: I'm a long time proponent of respecting experts on Wikipedia; they are invaluable. Too often they are ignored. Sometime the experts have to declare themselves, but as well, editors have a right to question even experts. In all, I think this could go back to the talk page with a bit more understanding all the way around.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    I encourage people to question me. It helps me understand a lot. What I don't like is when people who offer a bad source and I identify it as a bad source declare that I need to strike that evaluation because I lack competence and therefore they're going to ask for a topic ban. See the issue? jps (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin and have probably overstayed my welcome here, but at this point may be try treating each other with more respect. Jps this thread mischaracertizes and Dr Chrissy you threatened. You are both experts in different fields so try putting yourself in the other's boots and let this go. You are both important to Wikpedia . Expert are not that common. I realize I'm being obnoxious despite standing behind my comments so will depart before the rotten tomatoes start flying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    This does not mischaracterize the situation. DrChrissy shows up and has caused more problems and headaches. Given our history, ask yourself why that might be. That said, I'm happy to bury the hatchet (again), but I find working with DrChrissy tends to involve over-the-top histrionics and I'm fairly sure it's not going to let up. At least this thread will serve as a record if the problems continue. jps (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c)::You most certainly do not encourage people to question you. The very first diff you presented against me in this thread is here.[311] You described this as "The first edit is an obvious attempt to needle me". It was not. It was a perfectly civil edit to indicate that what you stated was not true under all circumstances. Your bringing this thread to AN/I is disruptive, your misleading the community is disruptive, your canvassing is disruptive and your continued attempts to character assassinate me are disruptive. I suggest admins start looking at action against you, and take into account your rather extensive block log. DrChrissy (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You know very well what you are doing. The attempts to undermine my good faith efforts to clean up a rather problematic part of the encyclopedia are plainly seen in the diffs provided above. I replied civilly to many of your concerns, even those which were, frankly, uninformed. The response I got was over-the-top demands that I delete my comments. You're trying to WP:BAIT and it is extremely tiresome. It would be better if you just stayed away from me. I'll be happy to return the favor. jps (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple Personal Attacks by User:Garuk Gar, one of the many many many socks of User:Cow Cleaner 5000.

    Is there anything more that can be done about the many offensive edits by this user and her virtually unlimited supply of socks? See these (ahem) "contributions" which are all personal attacks against myself and multiple editors and admin. She has created more than 100 socks[312][313] to pursue her conspiracy agenda. She also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Justin Anthony Knapp, bordering on stalking. Could someone at WP contact her ISP maybe? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I assume CC5K is a "her" due to the user's self-declaration of that gender[314] and her rant about embracing feminism as the "one way forward".Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely since that same diff says My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article yet CC5K constantly attacks Knapp as a terrorist... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Knapp says otherwise on his talk page... "CowCleaner comes back intermittently to say something about how great I am and how a manga magazine is a terrorist organization." Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP not making productive edits at templates

    How should I handle this? 109.108.250.225 (talk · contribs) has been making drastic changes over several templates and articles and has been warned about it several times already [315][316][317]. Some categories are outright bizarre [318] (was warned about it by Jim1138. His edits at templates are also strange [319]. Since I'm only familiar with the NKR template, I can't comment on the other templates he has edited. Perhaps Laberkiste can help me out here? At any rate, would appreciate it if something could done about this. It's causing quite a lot of stability. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I will look into the recent edits of the IP and rollback every bad one... There are so many edits and some template edits are really fragmented... --Laber□T 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. try to read more. 1) [320] It was not removal, only subtitle was added, see here apologies from user. 2) Second edit [321] because eight Italian swimmers were among the victims. 3) Here it was removed the unsourced information. Ukraine is not a "military aid" for any party. Navbox used for navigation between article about topic, not between countries. 109.108.250.225 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I also advise the user of IP 109.108.250.225 to try to make one large instead of many small edits to templates (use the sandbox if possible). --Laber□T 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=714284709"