Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Laura Branigan birth date, and birth place

Overall, the issue is official source verus user edited sources. Ultimately, the users Born53 swe and Thomas.W are using user submitted references to prove a different birth date and birth place. The official website for the singer is being ignored for this. There is a lot to read at this point and much of it in the last day. I have tried once to correct the birth date and place and got reverted. Reading over the talk page, it goes into other languages, and weird conspiracies about her age at death.

Overall, the issue is her birth date. Official website says July 3, 1957. She was born in Brewster, New York. Descending view is July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, New York. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Devilmanozzy - Have you discussed your concerns on the article's talk page, or with these editors on their talk page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this article [1] which quotes "one superfan" who supports the 1952 date. And then I had a look at the talk page of the article. Seems like a WP:COI. (I am not providing a diff since I don't want to violate WP:OUTING, although the editor in question has voluntarily provided the name). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is ridiculous. See User talk:Diannaa#Laura Branigan for more information, and page history of Laura Branigan for previous disruption, disruption going back several years and severe enough to result in several blocks last year, and protection of the article on and off for the past several years. Laura Branigan's former manager (editing as User:Vince-OHE, formerly named "Other Half Entertainment" and with self-proclaimed COI, and also editing as many IPs), claims it's 1957 but has provided no independent sources for it, only his own website and sources that obviously got the infornation from there, while other editors, including User:Born53 swe, claim it's 1952, and have made a much more convincing case than the manager. It is in ther words a content dispute, and as such does not belong on ANI. Thomas.W ^talk 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute and such discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not in an ANI. Devilmanozzy, please create a discussion on the article's talk page (if you haven't already done so), so that the issue can be discussed and resolved properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I really don't know what to do. I usually edit at wikia, which has none of this. I am here to correct a birth date a birth place to a singer from a soundtrack to a movie I care about. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Devilmanozzy - There are other editors that have issues with the date that you're trying to add to the article, as well as the source that you're trying to use to support the change. You need to properly discuss these concerns by navigating to the article's talk page and creating a discussion to resolve it. If another editor has already created a discussion, you will want to respond to it and discuss the issue with them and address their concerns. Once a consensus is reached, the article can be modified (or kept at the status quo) in order to reflect that consensus. In order to allow this ANI discussion to be closed for archiving (this issue does not belong on this noticeboard), please respond on my talk page with any additional questions or concerns that you may have. I'll be happy to assist you there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dweller opened up a section about getting links. (Talk:Laura Branigan#Trying to help resolve the birth year issue) Is that what is needed? Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Other Half Entertainment" have behaved as if they own the article about Laura Branigan for ten years now, see this post from July 2006 on Talk:Laura Branigan, where they claim to have the right to control what's in the Wikipedia article, it is also complicated by there being two "official websites", laurabraniganonline.com, owned by Other Half Entertainment, and laurabranigan.com, owned by someone else, fighting over which site is the official one. So all of it is one big mess... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• In case this was not completely obvious, if it's disputed, remove it until there is unambiguous agreement on talk and completely robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I brought this down here was because I was unable to organize a discussion on this due to how Thomas has been reacting to what I brought to the article. It is confusing to come to an article ruled by one point of view. After finding a ongoing battle starting up, I asked for help. Now it seems that the discussion is now in progress. Hopefully the outcome will be respected. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF trumps WP:UGC "sources". The end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: In an ideal world where everything is simple, yes, but in this case the subject of the article passed away twelve years ago, leaving two official websites that AFAIK still haven't been able to settle the dispute about which one of them is the official website, since both of them still claim that they're the real official one, making them nothing more than fansites. And WP:ABOUTSELF can hardly apply in this case since the information isn't about themselves, i.e. the site and its owners (Laura Branigan's former manager), but about Laura Branigan. WP:ABOUTSELF also says that self-published sources aren't allowed if there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, which I feel there is since Laura Branigan is dead and can neither confirm nor deny anything that is said on either of the two "official websites". Thomas.W ^talk 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why would an alleged "official" site not created by her manager be considered legit? I.e., if Branigan trusted the manger to run the site while alive, that would appear to make that the official site, well, officially, absent any evidence that the manager went nutso after she died and made weird changes. If it was ABOUTSELF-worthy before she died, it wouldn't be suddenly unreliable the day after she did, absent evidence of post-death shenanigans at the site. I can right this minute go create a third "official" Laura Branigan website but WP would have reason to take that seriously, so why are we taking seriously the claims of officialness by another site that isn't by her staff? I agree that the manager ("former manager" is kinda POV, suggesting he was terminated) acting OWNy here is a COI problem, but that's unrelated to whether the external source maintained for Branigan then and now by this person has somehow become unreliable and unofficial and not more reliable than a fansite just because she's died or because the manager is being too proprietary here. If anything, it seems like the manager is trying to be protective; it's not like he's some vandal. Anyway, if we don't want to trust either site, just say the birthdate is disputed, cite them both in once ref as example primary sources demonstrating that different dates are claimed, and leave it at that until more sources are found.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is relevant, though doesn't provide any reliable sources one way or the other. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me.

• Brian Martin (social scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help Desk refered me here. As Gongwool [2] is feeling harassed and stalked I think it better to discuss resolutions with others present. On BLP WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)[3] I am getting attacked and Gongwool is feeling stalked/harassed.

Gongwool is refusing to discuss edits with me. Rather Gongwool posted their discussion to an admin's page without notifying me. [4]

I have made the mistake of addressing user conduct on theBLP Talk page.

• Examples of SmithBlue addressing user conduct on talk page: [5], [6], [7], [8]
• Examples of attacks by Gongwool and Gongwool feeling harrased :WP:Brian Martin Talk page:

Accuses SmithBlue of CoI:[9], Accusation of Harrassment and DE, statement of no further comms.[10], Claims SmithBlue wishes to "whitewash" the article and has a CoI: [11]

• Examples of attacks, feeling stalked and harrased, noncivil and accusatory edit sums:
• 07:06, 9 February 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,122 bytes) (+78)‎ . . (Fixed para due to complaining IP editor.)
• 05:29, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,733 bytes) (+427)‎ . . (Add text from book as I was being from agro editor not practicing Good Faith.)
• 05:55, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,799 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (Added 2 more references to hopefully stop agro from an editor.)
• 23:16, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,680 bytes) (+658)‎ . . (Undid revision 710599623 by SmithBlue (talk) It is WP:RS Science news journal. Sorry, I don't discuss with this stalky editor due to his prior harassment. So won't engage in his silly arguments.)
• 23:45, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,704 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: Changed text to quote to satisfy any pro-OPV-AIDS / pro-Vaccine-Autism link 'Fringe theorists' who may be overly-critical of cites here for reasons of bias.)

I do want the "stalky" "harrasment" issue cleaned up. I do not want an WP editor feeling stalked and harrasssed. Nor do I want to be portrayed in those terms. And I want the attacks to stop. Where to from here? (This BLP is very unstable. There were recent ongoing BLP violation issues. Diffs of large changes; [12], [13] Editing practices may need to be addressed.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is very confusing.

1. Are you the one feeling harassed or is Gongwool feeling harassed?
2. Are you speaking of yourself in the 3rd person?

Blackmane (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I SmithBlue am speaking of myself in the 3rd person above. "Gongwool [14] is feeling harassed and stalked". SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Hi, yes it's confusing. I have not requested that this editor make a complaint about himself on my behalf so I have crossed out the parts of the complaint on my behalf that I never asked for. With that in mind others may understand why I don't engage with this editor.

2. Anyway, I think the real issue here is that this particular editor has has a current suspension warning from an admin for editing "fringe theory" issues and is sore with this. Whereas I don't support fringe theory and (understandingly) have no such warnings hanging over my head. He will now certainly reply below in an attempt to engage me in some awkward argy-bargy agenda, but I will not reply. Have a good day. Thanks. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't refactor others' comments, Gongwool. That said, I'm kinda glad this was brought here... though I am still confused. This ended up on my user talk page and frankly I ignored it as an editor dispute that I didn't want part of and because I really didn't understand what was going on. Anyway, it needs some attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK EvergreenFir, understood. But to all others please ignore the 95% of the above complaint which involves the other editor making a complaint about himself on my behalf. I did not authorise such. I'm also confused... but just getting on with WP editor business and avoiding those who have a 'fringe theory' (see his warning from admin here) agenda who desperately try to wind me up. I know there's policies at WP about pushing fringe theory and totally agree. Thanks, bye. Gongwool (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As is obvious Gongwool portrays me as "pushing a fringe theory". Given that I'm not "pushing a fringe theory" this seems to be a form of taunting. Taunting would seem to disrupt editing. SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

See I told you he'd try to engage in argy-bargy argument and wind me up. Taunting? I think his bizarre reverse complaint (making a complaint on my behalf identifying himself as the offender) shows the reverse. His complaint compultion is too weird for me (sorry but I think he craves chaos on 'fringe theory'). I've better things to do. bye.!!! Gongwool (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Admins, experienced users. What do you suggest? SmithBlue (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The real problem

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

SmithBlue joined Wikipedia in 2007. Up to the end of 2008 xe was reasonably active, but with a number of edits related to the OPV AIDS hypothesis, a refuted AIDS origin hypothesis promoted by Edward Hooper and latterly supported by Brian Martin (the locus of dispute toady). Example edits: [15], [16], [17].

Then, after a lengthy absence, SmithBlue returned with all guns blazing on Feb 9 2016, with this ANI report on a dispute where xe had no apparent prior involvement at all (unless xe was using an alternate account?). There's also this, linking a polemical "review" of our article on the OPV AIDS hypothesis on a crank alt-med website.

As far as I can see, SmithBlue's major beef is with the fact that the OPV AIDS hypothesis is considered refuted. From xyr edits, xe appears to consider it rejected and suppressed, not refuted. In fact, the sources show it to be refuted by robust evidence including DNA analysis.

Addendum: In pushing for a less dismissive treatment of this refuted hypothesis, SmithBlue has started six separate sections of discussion on Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist), five of them within a single 24 hour period. He appears to eblieve that consensus necessarily means that he must agree ([18]). This is, obviously, false: consensus does not mean unanimity, and editors are fully entitled to ignore stonewalling. SmithBlue is making large numbers of rapid-fire demands on the Talk page (e.g. this series: [19]) without allowing adequate time for others to respond. He seems, in short, to be showing all the classic signs of being here to Right Great Wrongs. His wrongteous anger is clearly getting the better of him.

A review of SmithBlue's edits shows a determination to present The Truth™ about the OPV-AIDS hypothesis - an idea first published in that well-known medical journal Rolling Stone and primarily promoted by Edward Hooper, a journalist with no known medical qualifications, which has been refuted by phylogenetic and molecular biological studies. The word refuted here is used in its correct technical sense, ref Nature. This hypothesis has been exploited by anti-vaccination activists and has played a part in preventing the final eradication of poliomyelitis. Not just nonsense, then, but deadly nonsense - so quite high stakes as far as the reliability of Wikipedia goes.

I issued a DS notice: [20].

I believe that editors of the Brian Martin article are losing patience with rebutting SmithBlue's querulous demands. This seems to me to be WP:BOOMERANG territory. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for turning up Guy. Uninvolved admins - yes Guy is a very involved admin at WP:Brian Martin - please check;

• this diff[21] for the BLP Brian Martin that compares from immediately prior to Guy's first edit there with the article just prior to me arriving with all guns blazing.
• This diff [22] which is the result of a cleanup by respected Wikipedians User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EverGreenFir & User:Bilby. Due, I understand, to my flagging the BLP vios and Disruptive Editing.
• Guy protests the mass removal of material. And bilby responds :Hi! The short version is that there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, and issues around due weight. ...[23] Pure magic.

In light of Guy's involvement in turning BLP WP:Brian Martin into an attack piece and his defence of it when I tried BLPN and AN/I I suggest that Guy's actions at BLP Briann Martin make him a subject of this ANI as well. Please bear that in mind when you read his attempts to portray me as disruptive. I think it would be helpful to ask User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EvergreenFir & User:Bilby for their views on the state of the article when they arrived. SmithBlue (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly involved in the Martin article, though more as a result of his sponsorship of an antivax PhD that fails even the most basic tests of academic rigour. Now you need to read WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasons you were active on Brian Martin are not why I am here. I am here in large part because of your editing conduct on WP:Brian Martin. SmithBlue (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that he's got his guns blazing from you too Guy (Help!), that's because you are also believe in WP:fringe policy. The offender's aim is to scare off any person who is not a pro-OPVAIDS or pro-Vax-Autism link fringe theorist, and his badgering seems to be working well. He's put in about 3 or 4 complaints about this article and seem to have failed, he won't give up. I asked him some time back to leave me alone as I knew he was "trouble" and he's done the exact opposite, finally putting in this ridiculous complaint on my behalf just to try and have an argumentative debate with me. Yep, he's trouble to you, me or any person who may support of WP:fringe policy. Can he be banned from this and any other article discussing fringe theory and fringe theory scientific correction issues? I don't know how such works. Gongwool (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Gongwool (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment There's obviously an element of content disputation here; but tbh User:Gongwool does also seem to have a somewhat unpolished attitude towards collegiality. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's been getting along OK with Bilby and they have been collaborating well enough to improve the articles. Gongwool should be aware that it's not really necessary to poke SmithBlue with a sharp stick, xe looks like xe is quite capable of digging xyr own grave unaided. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JzG, I don't admit to being too polished or experienced (unless that's a crime), but all understood and heard. Then again none of us asked for this complaint to be here, it's designed to be somewhat of a distraction, one thinks. Gongwool (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, SmithBlue, you are here because you want to recruit support in your attempts to push fringe content into the article, when you are failing to gain any traction at all on the article's Talk page. That much is obvious from your statement of the dispute: you want to run the opposition out of town. It's not going to work because the edits you propose are not supported by policy. It's hardly a surprise, given your very limited experience of Wikipedia. However, the problem is not with "everybody else", it's with your unwillingness to heed consensus and apparent attempts to portray a refuted antivax trope as a valid but suppressed theory. It's not suppressed, it's refuted, as our article clearly shows. The science has actually become more settled since you originally tried this. Wikipedia is not the place to present anti-vaccination tropes as anything other than the dangerous bullshit they are. This is by design. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No Guy I am here because I saw the BLP Brian Martin overflowing with BLP violations sometime around early February and eventually decided to intervene[[24]]. Since then I have;

• flagged the violations in a BLPN,
• flagged the violations in an AN/I,
• flagged your participations in the violations at a separate AN/I,
• provided a list of further on-going un-addressed BLP violations at both AN/Is,
• been mistypified by you as pushing fring content,
• been taunted and attacked by your protege on BLP Brian Martin - Gongwool[[25]],
• been ignored when I made requests for assistance to multiple admins regarding the BLP violations and user conduct violations,
• started this AN/I to address the attacking micro-culture you as asenior admin created on BLP Brian Martin,
• addressed your user conduct around deliberately violating BLP policy and your advising others to ignore BLP policy.

& been struck by the participation rate of un-involved neutral admins to this AN/I. This is why I am here. I bother cause I'm not yet convinced that WP is irretrievably broken. Maybe if WP can improve its integrity - and live by it's claimed standards - things can yet turn around. And WP fulfil it's potential. SmithBlue (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA in one hit, good job. See [26]. Incidentally, SmithBlue, this set ([27], [28], [29], [30]) is unnecessary since the pings you already included will have alerted these good people. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WTF? This complainant knows no boundaries. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Gongwool (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked explicitly about contacting the admins who cleaned up the BLP. And was told that, as long as I didn't coach them, it would be OK. Do you disagree with the advise I got from Help Desk Chat? Do you object to 5 Wikipedians who cleaned up the BLP presenting their views?SmithBlue (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to my statement above. The first is that your post to Seabreezes1 was unambiguously inappropriate (albeit that it shows very clearly your failure to comprehend why your edits are rejected). The second was that the other posts to Talk pages were unnecessary since they will already be aware through your mentioning them here; writing on this page is in any case going firther than contacting those admins and is instead contacting the entire admin community. I can't comment on the claim you make about Help Desk anyway, since the last posting by you to Help Desk I can find was in 2008: [31] and was about something else entirely. And anybody who's seen my talk page will know I have no problem at all with involving any other admins, especially DGG, or indeed Drmies, both of whom I hold in high regard. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll find my request for clarification in the logs of Help Desk Chat: "Do you need real-time chat help with your issue? Join our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help" link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/chat I appreciate your demonstration of AGF on this issue. SmithBlue (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are misinterpreting "sod off, we're not going to fix this". But even if you're not, posting here does the same job, as I was pointing out. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Smokescreen

The attempt, by Guy, to portray me as attempting "to push fringe content" has a major flaw.

• I have not attempted to push fringe content.
  

(see section below [[32]] where's Guy's mis-categorisation is made clear.)

Even a quick inspection of any diff put forward will show that I am a stickler for WP policy and guidelines around pseudoscience and just about everything. WP:Infant formula - maybe I messed up there 8 years ago and let nonsourced material remain? My goal, (was it 8 years ago when I put forward those science academic publication sources?), was to have the topic portrayed exactly in line with WP policy and guidelines. I always discussed and sought consensus. And still do. Hence this AN/I. What lies behind this smokescreen of Guy's?
User conduct in the flicking of a BLP into an attack piece.
Here again are the diffs showing the arc of the BLP through the Guy, Gongwool and Jewjoo period[33] and out the other side[34].

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the BLPN that I started in an attempt to get the BLP vios addressed. [[35]]

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps... This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP. More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [33], [34]. Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university. There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the ANI that I started (Note the smokescreening) [[36]].

The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• On WP:Brian Martin, two edits clearly summed as BLP issues with existing discusions on Talk;

15:29, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,361 bytes) (-927)‎ . . (BLP issue: rem inaccurate reflection of source. see Talk) [[37]] &
16:14, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,558 bytes) (-185)‎ . . (rem "published by A rather than B" from lede. BLP, OR see Talk) [[38]]
Guy claims whitewashing & reverts:
22:55, 4 February 2016‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,288 bytes) (+730)‎ . . (Reverted 4 edits by 124.171.109.96 (talk): Revert whitewashing. Please discuss on Talk efore removing material. (TW))[[39]]
Guy with that edit summ also promoted actions in violation of BLP policy. BLP policy is clear that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately ...". Not discussed and then later removed. And what was Guy defending?
Here again is Bilby's reply [[40]] "... there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, ..."
SmithBlue (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ho-hum, it looks like big bad Guy is attempting to keep Wikipedia on the straight-and-narrow again, and someone is complaining about it again. I suppose that means that the sun will set again this evening. BMK (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll decide later if it is to rise again tomorrow, just to show that I can. #adminabuse. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother, I don't mind sleeping in all day. BMK (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what part of my statement is supposed to be problematic, since it's all an accurate reflection of the sources cited in the article. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue asked me to look at the article. Without considering the history, of specific BLP questions, the actual material about the subject appears basically fair, but the presentation is slanted by multiple statements that the OPV-AIDS theory is discredited. So it is, and it is appropriate to say so in the article, but stating it one time is enough. I have noticed a similar problem in some other articles on scientist out of the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming DGG. As I have raised the issue of BLP violations on the article I ask that you give your appraisal of the article as it was immediately before I intervened.[[41]]

Yeah, that tends to happen when people keep trying to change it to suppressed or disputed instead of refuted, which is what it is. You end up with a hundred sources for a trivial and uncontentious (except to a tiny minority) fact. A pet peeve, really, since non-neutral crud gets added, it gets neutralised and left, and the paragraph never gets copyedited down to its essence. Still and all, 100% of the noise on that talk page right now is coming from one source: SmithBlue. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re SmithBlue

It is unclear to me how this thread got so long, nor why User:SmithBlue has not been blocked under the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article. I propose a 48-hour block on SmithBlue to prevent further disruption to the project. The mainstream editors involved here have better things to do than keep going round and round on this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC) (fixed typo in wikilink Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

My current concern is the integrity of WP. I undertake not to edit on BLP Brian Martin for 48 hours. While I do this voluntarily I reject your view that I am "WP:Civil POV-pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article". Please provide your reasoning for categorising my edits on Brian Martin or OPV-AIDS as WP:Civil POV-pushing. SmithBlue (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your flooding this thread with comments following my posting above kind of proves point my point about disruption. You are sucking up the time of people here. Please do actually read the essay instead of just mocking my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many aspects to this AN/I. I was seeking to stop attacks on myself and address an editor feeling harrassed and stalked. Guy has expanded the range. Are you advising that it is better to just let things slide and not respond, not fill in missing pieces, not bring elements of my concerns about user conduct here, not ask your reason for your view, "the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article."?

This approach is not consistent with Guy telling me that the burden of proof is on me. SmithBlue (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The continued mocking is only digging your hole deeper. You are demonstrating that you are here to fight, not to solve problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: I'm not sure but I interpret your stamemnt re mocking to reference my cutting and pasting a mis-formatted WP essay. If this is correct your interpretation is incorrect. i was just using the quickest cut and paste available. What would it take to change your views around, "PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article." Are there specific edits that are of great concern? Or is it Guy's authority combined with my having ever editted OPV-AIDS and BLP:Brian Martin. Or some other factors. Whatever it is, are you prepared to investigate further? SmithBlue (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have investigated further, and you are absolutely POV-pushing on one side of this issue. Your edits reflect advocacy, as does your behavior on this board. And you were absolutely mocking me instead of reading the essay and considering your behavior in light of it, which is what a thoughtful editor who is not POV-pushing would do. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue & "push fringe content" - the claims and the reality

Guy, to evidence his claim that I, SmithBlue, am pushing fringe content, provides the following cites."Example edits: [42], [43], [44]." Let us examine them:

• [45] I provide the source details for a book written by the subject that is already in the article. And, in an BLP, add a short description of a scientific paper that the subject co-authored.
• [46] I change section heading from "Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (disproven conjecture)" to "=== Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (rejected) ===". This is line with Nature[47]. And Guy's own use of "rejected" on this page. (see:The Real Problem:Addendum)
• [48] I suggest that all editors work first in the areas of agreement and list a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on. I then point out that suppression of dissent material is also relevant. This suppression material is scientifically published and focussed on as part of the history of OPV-AIDS in a 2015 textbook, "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology - Stephen H. Jenkins". Guy has raised no objections to the use of this tertiary source on BLP Brain Martin.

Guy has mis-categorised my edits. SmithBlue (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You list "a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on"? That sounds a lot like a WP:COI. Do you actually mean that you are here to use Wikipedia as a pre-print for something that you are working on and have not yet published? Guy (Help!) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the actual edit in context if you have any doubts. From memory the 2008 edit contains a reference to the 2001 Lincei paper that I was working on. If so then it would be unlikely that "I am working on" would refer to a paper I am writing. SmithBlue (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking the 4th diff re: papers: I pointed out the existence of the papers from Lincei 2001 and I was working on reading one of the papers from Lincei 2003. SmithBlue (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect your intentions would be less open to the misinterpretation you insist they receive, if you were to concentrate on writing fewer words in fewer threads and with greater coherence. Especially the last. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy's edit that created multiple BLP vios

BLP Policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

• [49] The majority of the material Guy added here fails WP:Verify. As does his addition of "Category:Anti-vaccination"

With Guy's illustrious WP history, the idea that Guy was unaware that the material failed WP:Verify must be rejected out of hand. Deliberately action against BLP policy is not about content, it is about conduct. Here we have Guy acting to knowlingly violate BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What we actually see is more evidence of your standard behaviour: throwing dung in all directions hoping to drive off those who disagree with you. The past content of the article does not matter at all, because the people who have been editing it - even those who originally made it a borderline hagiography - have worked together pretty harmoniously. Stuff goes in, it comes out, it gets discussed, it might get modified, it might stay out - and it's all dealt with really rather calmly, with one exception: you. Look how many comments you've added here and at the talk page - and how little else you have done in the short while since your returned from hiatus. You are a bore. Accept consensus and shut up. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Wikipedia consensus is enshrined in it's policies. You have acted to deliberately flout BLP policy. If you see BLP policy as not reflecting WP community consensus then please take your gripes to the appropriate forum and work to improve policy. Do not pretend to have consensus behind you on this matter. By doing so you continue to promote the violation of BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the admin noticeboard, you are publicly accusing an admin of deliberately flouting a very important policy. Before you persist in this line of attack you probably need to be aware of a couple of things: first, I was defending controversial BLPs before that policy even existed, and was bitterly attacked off-wiki as a result; second, I wrote the standard advice given to biography subjects when they email the Wikimedia Foundation. You need to be extremely careful that you have solid evidence that my edits were deliberately flouting policy and not good faith edits based on my reading of sources, on the interpretation of which reasonable people may differ. Remember, on Wikipedia you are allowed to be wrong. What you are not allowed to do is to continue asserting you are right, even when everyone else keeps telling you that you are wrong (see WP:IDHT). The burden of proof here lies with you. So far you have given an excellent demonstration of assuming bad faith, but that's all. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy: Please remember that, although you are an admin, here on this AN/I, your editing is under exactly the same scrutiny as mine. The burden is on you to address your many user conducts failing that I have listed here. SmithBlue (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, given that you have deliberately changed edits of mine and by doing so showed that you are an unabashed liar, I would not be in the least bit surprised if you have flouted other areas of WP policy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy. User:Jytdog and User:JzG etc. I think this thread has lost track from its initial complaint of SmithBlue reporting SmithBlue for misbehaviour. The only notification regards this thread was that SmithBlue was making a report/complaint on my behalf about his harassment of me (go figure!!!), the rest is fill. Now I never authorized such nor will I take part, nor will I communicate with him for obvious reasons. The rest of this is all SmithBlue throwing mud everywhere and not going through proper channels. All I know is that SmithBlue came back to WP using his secondary IP account admitting he has tried "Disruptive Editing but got nowhere." It is obvious he is here to disrupt and I have better things to do that involve myself in an editor who harasses then reports themself on the victims behalf simply so he can "get another piece of me". As suggested above by another a 48hr ban on SmithBlue, which I thing is way too kind considering SmithBlue's disruptive agenda. He's never going to give up his compulsion to disrupt. I have nothing else to say here on this page, Bye. Gongwool (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would support something stronger than what I proposed, but I wanted to get the ball rolling. It is time. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this cr*p still going on? I made it clear I never asked him for a complaint on my behalf. As Jytdog has suggested it's perhaps to send a stronger message to SmithBlue. Or is everyone too scared of him to do banning, restricting or whatever? Gongwool (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's sum it up to this point

(1) DrChrissy's claim that Guy is an "unabashed liar" is an unabashed WP:NPA. A block is appropriate. Please consider DrC's block log and current topic bans when determining the appropriate length of the block.

(2) SmithBlue's repeated WP:IDHT behavior is classic WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING, and that, along with his own WP:NPA towards Guy, is also deserving of a block. We cannot allow ourselves to be placed in a position were people who are doing their damnedest to protect the encyclopedia from fringe bullshit are not supported in their efforts. Our credibility and accuracy are at stake.

(3) Would someone uninvolved - admin or not - with an ounce of common sense please close this god-forsaken thread, or are we going to allow SmithBlue to have as much space on AN/I as he desires in the process of hanging himself? Shut it down, please. BMK (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion, in spite of my involvement in the article, as during the last week I've been almost completely without internet access. But I think it should be remembered that the Brian Martin (social scientist) article did suffer from serious BLP problems until quite recently. Those problems were repeatedly identified by IPs, SmithBlue and others on multiple locations, and not acted on. This isn't a simple case of a tendentious editor pushing a fringe theory, but editors banging their heads against a wall trying to get significant BLP issues fixed and not being heard. The thing is, of course, that the problem is now much reduced and is far more manageable, (although not yet completely fixed). I'm not sure what the correct response is, but I would like to see SmithBlue and others put down the stick and tone things back, as the noise was needed before, but it is counter productive now. If a short block is needed to give that time to happen, so be it, but if something short of a block will do the same I'd rather go in that direction. - Bilby (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No that's not correct Bilby, SmithBlue is only interested in OPV-AIDS fringe theory battles with that and the other article, not general work as others have been doing. To infer SmithBlue is contributing or trying to make articles accurate (as opposed to disrupting) is very misleading, as the above threads due to him here attest to. The Brian Martin, OPV-AIDS theory and the Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents pages are where he has caused most disruption. Gongwool (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I find that comment odd, as you have also only been interested in OPV-AIDS articles and the Wilyman PhD as well. If the intent is to claim that SmithBlue's focus makes their efforts disruptive, then the same can certainly be said of others involved in this.

My concern is that there were serious problems with the Wilyman-related articles, that we, as a community, only addressed because editors continued to raise them. It is understandable that those editors who weren't being listened to before are still trying too hard to be heard. I certainly agree that they need to step back, but the goal should be seeing if that can be managed through a means short of blocking, or, if not, short of an indef block. The circumstances here are more complex than they are being interpreted. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

From my point of view much of this AN/I is Shooting The Messenger.
Guy's misportrayal of me a fringe content pusher seems to remain the understanding of many of the admins.
I am treated as a problem rather than thanked for my time consuming work in getting multiple on-going BLP violations addressed. This has not been a pleasant task.
I remain concerned that the mud thrown my way will, in the eyes of some, stick. I would find this AN/I much easier if admins were to ask me more questions and would not frame their replies to me in terms that I consider inaccurate portrayals.
As long as Bilby is continuing to remove the on-going BLP violations from Brian Martin I will ignore BLP policy, that states BLP violations must be removed immediately, and not edit on WP:Brian Martin. (Editing on any WP article is currently as attractive as hitting my finger with a hammer).
Does Biby advise me that holding off posting further analysis of Guy's edits around WP:Brian Martin will deepen the understandings reached by this AN/I?
I am quite prepared to step back voluntarily and let the waters of this AN/I settle. What timeframe is suggested? SmithBlue (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

When the messenger is simply a neutral communication channel, shooting them is, indeed, counter-productive. But when the messenger is an integral part of the problem being reported, and they are skewing the message in a way that supports their own position while denigrating and misrepresenting the positions of others, then "shooting the messenger" makes a lot of sense. Lcok & load, ladies and gentlemen. BMK (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Especially when at the time of filing (and possibly still now) the "messenger" has absolutely nothing in their history for months other than one single issue. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the reports are being skewed on both sides. If we were stupid enough to focus on the drama there would be a lot of blame to go around, for all of the parties. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank Guy & BMK for bringing an issue into focus. If, during my voluntary step-back, I find I am inaccurately portrayed, or false or misleading claims relevant to me are made on this ANI, what can be put in place to ensure that I am not disadvantaged by my voluntary absence? A satisfactory answer to this and a timeframe that I can agree to is all that is necessary now to facilitate this step-back.SmithBlue (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. Nobody owes you nuttin'. BMK (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The top priority is that we fix the problems, not that we assign blame. I expect here our focus should be on how to improve the problem, or how to maintain the current direction the article has been heading in. I can't speak for others, but from my perspective we all need to tone back on the rhetoric, write with less heat (by which I also include comments about Martin), and just focus on improving the article. :) If we can close this, and get back to working on the articles, it would be a nice step forward. I don't know what else is required, but we'll see. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I currently have a large target daubed on me by Guy. It reads "pushes fringe content". Multiple admins on this ANI have been convinced by Guy's presentation. I am not clear that this is best ignored or can be avoided. SmithBlue (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this avenue isn't going to change anyone's mind. I don't know what the best approach us, but sadly I don't see this thread as a productive solution. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The above comment is the third edit ever by this IP. BMK (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because I used my phone and forgot that I never log in on it. Sorry. Fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: Sorry, what problem are we supposed to fix? The nebulous and poorly articulated problem with our characterisation of the bogus OPV AIDS conjecture, as purportedly identified by SmithBlue? There's no evidence of an actual problem there. The article on Martin is actively edited and the involvement of editors with differing perspectives on the legitimacy of his work has, as is often the case with Wikipedia, resulted in a much tighter and more robustly sourced article - there's no evident problem to fix there, either. The only problem I have identified at this point, apart from the fact that SmithBlue is on a mission, is the article on Edward Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which appears to be a WP:COATRACK, so I have sent it to AfD. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue's edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk

I (SmithBlue), have edited on Brian Martin Talk page. My edits there have been mis-portrayed by Guy, Gongwool, and other admins on this ANI, as POV-pushing and "pushing fringe content".

I reject these claims as ill-founded.

My edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk fit into 3 categories. 1. NPOV-pushing. (Yes that is Neutral POV pushing.) 2. Addressing user conduct. (I now see this was a mistake.) 3. Housekeeping: addressing CoI claims & attacks on myself.

In chronological order

• [[50]] Flag three BLP vios and seek discussion on Talk. NPOV-pushing
• [[51]] Add link on Martin's website to Bilby's existing OPV-AIDS section. Argue that basing "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" claim on link is unencyclopedic. NPOV-pushing
• [[52]] Respond to Woolgong's statement of agenda. Indicate support for that which is RS based only. (Article has recent history of repeatedly failing Verify) addressing user conduct
• [[53]] Add support to change from (professor) to (social scientist). Point out effect. NPOV-pushing
• [[54]] Respond to CoI claim. Reply to attack.
• [[55]] Point out that pattern of repeated BLP vios and defense thereof is flouting of community standards. addressing user conduct
• [[56]] In response to criticism for removing BLP vio I point out BLP policy: remove immediately. addressing user conduct
• [[57]] In response to a section devoted to discussing personal negative opinions of BLP subject I point out conflict of negative opinion swapping with NPOV, Verify and RS. And ask that such discussions be held elsewhere. A previous form of Gongwools' negative opinion on BLP:Brian Martin[[58]]. addressing user conduct
• [[59]] A change of reference details from possibilly correct to defininately inaccurate by Gongwool. In light of recent multiple BLP vios that failed Verify I request confirmation of content and explanation of change to inaccurate reference. NPOV-pushing
• [[60]]Ask admin to address DE on BLp. addressing user conduct
• [[61]]Address fantasy of Gongwool that I want to have negative Verify, Rs, Weight material removed from BLP. Reply to attack
• [[62]]Address attack and fantasy about my goals. Reply to attack
• [[63]] Correct Gongwool's twisting of meaning of my edit. Request confirmation of Verify. addressing user conduct
• [[64]]Start new section stating support for Gongwool's reading of "Tools for critical thinking in biology" that martin has been criticised for his support of OPV-AIDS. Point out Jenkins characterises those who still support OPV-AIDS as "a few die-hards". NPOV-pushing
• [[65]] I reject Guy's misrepresentation of my edits around OPV-AIDS.Reply to attack
• [[66]] I confirm that Gongwool is correct on OPV-AIDS related criticism of MArtin. And request explanation for Gongwool's intro of inaccuracy into a formerly correct cite. addressing user conduct
• [[67]] I clarify the exact inaccuracies Gongwool has introduced into cite. addressing user conduct
• [[68]] I argue that the presentation of OPV-AIDS as merely "unproven" is far too weak. Suggest "refuted" or "convincingly disproven" as alternatives. NPOV-pushing
• [[69]] Reply to attack by Gongwool, congratulate Gongwool on Jenkins "Tools for" reference discovery. addressing user conduct
• [[70]] improve wording of [[71]] NPOV-pushing
• [[72]] edit to show support for Gongwool's current use of source that criticises Martin re OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[73]] Edit to reject guy's portrayal of "fringe pushing" <<A very poor edit. Previous version of rejection was absolutely fine>> Reply to attack
• [[74]] Criticise Guy's opaque comm style. Raise issue of Guy's pro-vaccine feelings disturbing his editing and admining. Promote Verify and RS. addressing user conduct
• [[75]] Start section in which to discuss "Weight of OPV-AIDS criticism" NPOV-pushing
• [[76]] Express support for change to "Martin is known as one of the supporters of the "convincingly disproven" or "refuted" re:OPV-AIDS NPOV-pushing
• [[77]] Suggest change to date range for Martin's support of OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[78]] New section: show risk that source claiming current views of OPV-AIDS is open to claims of bias. NPOV-pushing
• [[79]] New section: point out BLP vio edit by Gongwool fails RS. NPOV-pushing addressing user conduct
• [[80]] Suggest to Gongwool that refusal to engage to reach consensus is DE. Suggest that Gongwool seek guidance from Guy around requirements for BLPs. addressing user conduct

Any continuation of claims, that my edits on Brian Martin:Talk detailed above constitute POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", where those claims do not raise specific edits and present reasoned argument for them being POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", can only be seen as a insistence on mis-portrayal. SmithBlue (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, have you not yet realised? the horse is dead. Find something productive to do. And do be aware that adding your interpretation of your edits in italics does not confer any validity on that interpretation. In fact, it invites closer scrutiny and active challenge, because it implies that you are setting yourself up as arbiter of neutrality.

Oh yes? Remember your first edit in 2016? [81]

"Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=3

Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved.

4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting.

Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was your first logged-in edit since June 4 2011. Over four and a half years. Just at a time when the anti-vax crankosphere is working itself into a fine lather about the widespread criticism of Wilyman's PhD and Martin's role in it, you pile in with an anti-vax crank website's commentary on our coverage of the OPV-AIDS conjecture. Can you see why that's a it fishy?

Let me remind you of the first of your 53 talk page edits since the beginning of this month, the one which, as it happens, rang alarm bells for me:

Outside review of article lede

Some editors here might be interested in an outside review of the first 2 paragraphs of this article's lede.

Short version "Many factual errors are squeezed into these few words."

Find the long version 1/3 the way down the page at

Good luck and edit safely.

References

SmithBlue (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The source you are proferring is GreenMedInfo, one of many crank websites with a long and inglorious history of promoting anti-vaccination bullshit. Their commentary on our article is of absolutely no value, of course. But isn't it odd that you return form a years-long hiatus pushing commentary form an anti-vax blog that just happens to have published, shortly beforehand, an article spruiking the OPV AIDS conjecture and bigging up martin's "suppression" narrative. Again, this may all be perfectly innocent, but I am sure you can see why it sets off alarm bells. Antivaxers are, after all, dangerous and determined nutters.

Your next Talk edit, just over a month later:

Martin, has since August 2015, added a link to a non-academically published paper that states, "The case study examines the creation of unreasonable public certainty about an unresolved scientific dispute", in its abstract. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf

Martin's 2010 article can be found at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/

The 2010 paper does in my reading provide any evidence of Martin promoting OPV-AIDS as the correct explanation of AIDS' origins. However Martin examines and critiques the actions of the opponents of the OPV theory. Misinterpreting this as "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" is unencyclopedic. SmithBlue (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this article by Martin absolutely does suggest that he believes debate on the OPV AIDS conjecture is being suppressed - for example: "Scientists have spent a lot of effort trying to refute the polio-vaccine theory of the origin of AIDS, but very little trying to refute the conventional view, that blood from an SIV-infected chimpanzee got into humans via hunting or eating. There is very little direct evidence to support the conventional view, which explains neither the timing nor the location of the origin." This is a profound misunderstanding of the workings of science. The SIV hypothesis stands because it has passed the kinds of tests that the OPV conjecture failed, and because its authors reacted to critical commentary by producing better evidence, not by denial and going to the non-scientific press with a narrative f conspiracy, which is what proponents of the OPV conjecture did. The SIV hypothesis has been successfully defended in the peer-reviewed literature, and - crucially - if it failed the kinds of analysis that the OPV conjecture failed, then it too would be rejected. As with all scientific findings, it is provisional, and based on the best evidence we have to hand. The OPV conjecture has been proven, quite convincingly, to be false. And its continued promotion by anti-vax activists presents an active public health danger.

And this is completely in line with what the sources clearly show to be Martin's tendency to give greater weight to purported whistleblowers than the merits of their claims actually deserves. He is, as it were, seeing reds under every bed. He lacks the scientific background to understand just how convincing the refutation of the OPV conjecture is, and it is not a stretch to consider that the article you cited is indeed an attempt to stand it up with parity to the SIV hypothesis, which has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of inquiry (the OPV conjecture has a single source and, as far as I can tell, no parallel discovery at all, which is extremely unusual for valid scientific advances).

Sticking within Tal space, two edits later you say:

I do note that I find (social scientist) more impressive than (professor). (social scientist) certainly provides more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science. SmithBlue (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Providing "more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science" is a double error: First, providing more authority has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedias mission, especially when people are promoting obvious bollocks, as Martin has with Wilyman's PhD. Second, a social scientist is not a scientist, as such, and social science has little of value to say about the process of hard scientific inquiry. Rather the opposite, as Alan Sokal memorably demonstrated.

Your next Talk space edit:

Did EvergreenFir decide that an east Australian IP is sufficient evidence of a CoI? I have no CoI and aim for NPOV.

That I have tried for the last 6 weeks to bring attention to the multiple BLP vios in article should be celebrated by any editor seeking to improve WP.

Addressing Gongwool's fantasies about my goals for this article - I will be satisfied if the article is based on accurate representations of reliable sources. I am unimpressed by the other claims and positions taken by Gongwool. They appear likely to function as disprutors of editing.SmithBlue (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hubris, much? In "six weeks" of attempts to bring "NPOV" tot his article, you amassed exactly three previous talk page edits on the article. Instead, your efforts centred on canvassing users Nil Einne, Coppertwig and Seabreezes1. Your comments on the Talk page in this time are long on innuendo and short on usable sources.

So, your cherry-picked selection of your edits, and your glowing interpretation of the merits of your own input, do not, I think, tell the whole story. Your implicit assertion that there can be no legitimate criticism of your edits, does not stand up. You exhibit a strong POV and you have returned after a long hiatus in extremely combative mood to fight a battle that is not Wikipedia's. We recognise the scientific consensus view that the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is nonsense, and that Martin's continued support for it is emblematic of a systematic failure to properly challenge his own bias towards those he perceives as whistleblowers. That's what the sources show, in as much as they pay him any attention at all. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal redeux

One would not need to look further than this thread to see that SmithBlue is highly disruptive. This thread which started with one of the most passive aggressive things I've seen in my years here. No one has spoken in his favor at all in all the volume of words above. As a matter of fact, almost no one but SmithBlue himself has spoken. In itself, the volume he has written is disruptive. So, Proposed: That SmithBlue be indefinitely topic banned from subjects related to AIDS, broadly construed.

I would also strongly suggest that SmithBlue refrain from commenting in this section. Given the way you have been responding, it is doubtful you would help yourself in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support nothing more to add, proposal nails it. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As John from Idegon and Jytdog have said, all the evidence needed is in this thread. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support but extend the ban to any topic on 'vaccination' and/or 'hiv-aids' Jewjoo (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am good with that too. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on AIDS and vaccines, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Topic bans on AIDS & vaccines, broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on HIV, AIDS, and vaccines, broadly construed and with a clear explanation that we expect a minimum of six months of productive editing in other areas before we will reconsider the topic ban. SmithBlue is a clearly disruptive editor but it may turn out that he is only disruptive on certain topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I

I have achieved a successful resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I.
In the same way that I would not accept so much of the behavior displayed on this AN/I in my work place, I will not accept it in my recreation either.
Nor will I be a party to the training to bully and harrass or submit and avoid confronting the powerful that is evident here.
Until WP's process integrity and training outcomes reach an acceptable level - Adieu. SmithBlue (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's only a flesh wound! Guy (Help!) 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

He is indeed brave, Sir Knight. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking an admin to take a look at his userspace and apply NOTAFORUM at their discretion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor disrupts AN/I and then retires on the verge of being banned - quoting the cause celebre of the moment, "bullying" - well, you could knock me over with a feather. BMK (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone is proposing a community ban

Discussion here with examples provided: [82]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [83].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 12:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[84] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban for 166.137.105.84

He is constantly vandalizing the same pages that a previous IP was blocked for vandalizing and for block evasion. He continues after I have warned him many, many times. Jdcomix (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Jdcomix - This IP has no block log. Why are we jumping straight to a community ban instead of using AIV to report vandalism and have the IP blocked? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this appears to be long term abuse as documented here: User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Very fast and prolific vandal, multitudinously warned. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you for reporting, Jdcomix. It is true that AIV is usually faster and better for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict)This is an LTA abuser, being tracked by multiple editors for the last two months. Details can be found at here, as a copycat of the Animation Hoaxer. Dozens of insertions of deliberate factual errors every day or two, so far a dozen IP's have been collected. An experienced admin should consider a range block. Scr★pIron^IV 18:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I did consider it, ScrapIronIV, but this IP isn't related to any of the others listed by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I hadn't geolocated the IP, because I have become so familiar with the behavior. All the numbers look the same after a while... This type of vandalism particularly tough to deal with, because those who perform it also insert false information into supporting articles. Scr★pIron^IV 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem to be well at home among the proxies. It doesn't exactly take any skill nowadays. :-( I guess whac-a-mole is all we can do, until such time as Wikipedia starts requiring registration. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, this looks like the US-based copycat. The geolocation is wrong (New York instead of Texas), but everything else is the same, including the ISP. It could be that AT&T Wireless doesn't have a stable geolocation for customers. I hope it's not a third vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This range (the 166.* range) seems to be a magnet to vandals. Site banned no less. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this would make it the 4th user of this particular range to need a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just filed another report for 166.137.105.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at WP:AIV, but it's looking a bit backlogged. This is the same vandalism from the same narrow IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that provides a nice little range. I've blocked 166.137.105.0/24 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

If you liked that, you'll love this. Check out 2602:30A:2C95:6B0::/64. There's very similar vandalism in the form of hoax casting to children's animated films, especially The Rugrats Movie and Rugrats Go Wild. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Sorry to bother you with this, but a few more IPs from this range have shown up and performed the same vandalism as prior IPs identified here. For example: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. This whole IP range is almost nothing but Rugrats-themed vandalism, plus the occasional spree in other animated franchises. A range block on 2602:30A:2C95:6B0 won't stop it, but it will slow it down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole /64 range is most likely one person. I've blocked it for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

Disruptive editing by User:Spirit Ethanol

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

---

The user-in-question launched an Rfc on 12 February 2016 (concerning this article) without seeking local consensus beforehand (according to WP:RFC, this should have been protocol). He then proceeded to mislead other editors into believing that Palestine was somehow displayed as a "substate of Israel", a nonsense accusation that has gained significant traction and eventually this deception proved successful. The understandable majority of Rfc contributors supported separating Palestine from underneath the Israel entry due to the absurd insinuation and premise that the former is displayed as a part of the latter state; this is entirely untrue—see here for more details. I have tried time and time again to convince other editors that the Rfc was indeed biased, misleading and indeed illegitimate—due to the reasons that have been aforementioned—although my attempts to enlighten have rendered almost unheard and subsequently dismissed. In my opinion, I honestly believe that this bull-in-a-china-shop approach on SE's part is unwelcome and unacceptable at Wikipedia. Palestine (and previously the renamed Palestinian National Authority) has been included underneath the Israel entry since 2009 by Zoltan Bukovszky (an experienced editor within the field) and had worked seamlessly ever since for seven years. I am also due to appeal the misconstrued evaluation of the Rfc, although I believe that reporting the unjust and reprehensible behaviour of Spirit Ethanol would be necessary prior to appeal. Note: the user-in-question has been previously blocked twice. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indef block reporting party before they embarrass themselves beyond recognition. Why? Check their history in this RFC and you'll laugh out loud or break out in tears.--TMCk (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • IDHT is an understatement in this situation. They already have embarrassed themselves. If they cannot accept consensus, then they should not take part in Wikipedia, until they show that they can. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• The reporter Neve-selbert attempted to dominate the RfC, obsessively responding to almost every comment. Altogether he made about 180 edits, amounting to about half the total text. Several times he made comments that in my view violate the basic principle of consensus that all editors must obey, such as I continue to plan to defend it and preserve all the way with all the blood, toil, tears, and sweat I can muster and There will be no change, and I will certainly see to it that there will be no change. Other editors' views were "laughable nonsense" and similar (first diff). After administrator JzG (talk · contribs) closed the RfC in line with the very clear consensus, he tried three times to restore the previous version [90] [91] [92] and now tries to wikilawyer around JzG's closure. This type of behavior is completely unacceptable. I propose an indefinite topic ban on any edits related to Palestine. Zero^talk 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Considering that this article would fall under ARBPIA, discussion of sanctions should be at WP:AE, unless an admin sees sufficient evidence for WP:ACDS topic ban to be imposed unilaterally. I will say that Neve-selbert's behaviour in that RFC was reprehensible. The general tone of their posts sought to dismiss and belittle any opponent to their opinion. The environment surrounding Israel-Palestine articles is bad enough without more editors like this. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Blackmane's assessment. Though frankly seems like there's enough here for a passing admin to address it directly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark, The Voidwalker, Zero0000, Blackmane, and Evergreenfir: Firstly, I am willing to back off from this whole palaver and discuss the matter on the talk page in a rational and sensible manner, without any battleground overtone. Secondly, I would like the behaviour of Spirit Ethanol to also be addressed, as well as mine, for absolute fairness. And thirdly, I am not a female "she", but a male, "he" editor.--Neve–selbert 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not seeking a block per se for Spirit Ethanol. I just wanted an investigation of some sort as to both why he did not seek prior consensus on the talk page before the Rfc and why he misworded the Rfc question. I am disappointed that my behaviour is somehow viewed as "reprehensible".--Neve–selbert 08:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how starting an RfC and attempting to resolve an edit dispute in such a civic manner is disruptive. The RfC question was not worded with intention to mislead participants, but to express how I perceived what the parent-child layout meant, which is misleading and ambiguous. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: You should have sought local consensus prior to the Rfc. The fact that you ignored this is just pure recklessness. Your perception was a POV nonetheless, and it should have been discussed with familiarised editors before you kick-started the Rfc. A new discussion, meant to reflect on the evaluation, will take place in due course.--Neve–selbert 09:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree with this, the RfC was essentially useless, as the only one supporting Neve-selberts position is Neve-selbert himself. So an RfC was not necessary, local consensus would have been. Neve-selbert is unlikely to have complied, just like he did not comply with the RfC, but that would have been disruptive editing and handled accordingly. That said, the RfC does not pose a problem per se, it just dragged the process out longer. On the other hand it also went to show how overwhelmingly the consensus went against Neve-selberts edits, which at least clarifies that position. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that a local consensus would have achieved anything. The point under discussion was Israel-Palestine related. I don't think a local consensus has ever been achieved without the discussion becoming a quasi-RFC anyway. There are just too many viewpoints by too many editors in such a contentious sphere. At least in an RFC, an administrator would close the discussion which has more binding power than a non structured discussion like an RFC. It is not recklessness and declaring it as such is an assumption of bad faith. I viewed your behaviour as reprehensible because of how you badgered every point. If it did not fit your POV, it was dismissed or responded to with disdain. This is not the behaviour one expects in a RFC. Quite frankly, I would view Spirit Ethanol's skipping of the usual free for all that is 'discussion' in PI articles as a bold application of WP:IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think ultimately the only way to resolve this matter was through wider community participation, especially given that many similar articles exist. That is only achieved through a RFC. Other "discussion" at the page would have been a horrendous waste of time, I think that is quite clear. AusLondonder (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think a boomerang may unfortunately be necessary here for the poster. They have repeatedly refused to WP:LISTEN to other editors. I first raised serious concerns about the fact that this article, which Neve-selbert appears to view as their personal property, listed Palestine as an entry under Israel, in the same way as a non-sovereign dependency such as Gibraltar in the United Kingdom. This post is simply sour grapes and an extraordinary attempt by a POV-pusher to smear a constructive editor. This is obvious by the referencing of expired blocks. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is untrue, I am not attempting to smear anyone. I simply needed admin attention on the audacious behaviour of the editor-in-question. Any Rfc should have been launched subsequent to prior discussion as per protocol. Besides, I was simply trying to defend the status quo from a misunderstanding that eventually got out-of-hand. Had he just started a regular discussion on the talk page, without an Rfc, perhaps a unanimous agreement could have been reached without anyone jumping to any rash conclusions based on rash presumptions.--Neve–selbert 09:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What admin action should be taken against you for your "audacious behaviour"? What action should be taken against you for nominating the list for deletion on 1 January using the rationale that is was still the 31st December in some parts of the world? What about nominating it for speedy deletion on bogus grounds during the middle of an Afd in which no editors agreed with you and which resulted in a snow keep? What action should be taken against you in relation to your conduct of de-legitamising and hounding opposing editors during the RfC? What action should be taken against you given your pledge to reject the community consensus from the RfC and your pledge to edit against that consensus? What action should be taken against you given your complete and utter failure to observe WP:NPOV? AusLondonder (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, now Neve-selbert added "confusing" templates to the article without prior discussion in an apparent attempt of more disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support AusLondonder's proposal of a WP:BOOMERANG for Neve-selbert, if only for treating the site like a WP:BATTLEGROUND so consistently and so continuously. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommend that this report be withdrawn & the boomerang effort ended. We should concentrate on the dispute at the article-in-question as being what it is - a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that GoodDay has a history of staunchly defending this editor, a record demonstrated throughout the period of the RfC. Undermining of the RfC and it's author took place. This was in addition to consistently making ludicrous and contradictory arguments subsequently overwhelmingly rejected. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc result, is to give Palestine its own seperate entry in the article. PS - I've already contacted Neve-selbert & advised him to walk away from the topic-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So after writing above "I am willing to back off from this whole palaver", Neve-selbert still cannot let go of his obsession and now disrupts the article with tagging. [93] [94] I repeat my call for a topic ban. Or a block, at administrators' discretion. It is not acceptable to allow it to go on like this. Zero^talk 13:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, now I give up. We can talk about this rationally on the talk page, and I will refrain myself from any discretion. I have made my argument and my case, and now I would like to put it partially to rest—that is for now, at least.--Neve–selbert 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Partially"? "For now"? So you will partially keep up ownership and disruption and maybe later return to full throttle? That is what you've done over the whole course of the RFC.--TMCk (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: I will give it a rest for now, I have run out of steam anyway. If Zoltan Bukovszky wants to contest the result? I will fully support him. Otherwise, I'm going to take a backseat. Either way, I shall continue my dedication to the SLBY articles.--Neve–selbert 00:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened to giving it a rest? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing arguing the case here is the opposite of giving it a rest.--TMCk (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker and TracyMcClark: I'm not arguing any case. I just need some answers to my concerns from experts, that's all.--Neve–selbert 01:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, how relevant is the UN Occupied Palestinian Territory in this context? Hmm.--Neve–selbert 01:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear after promising to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour Neve-selbert has simply engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING and posted a highly misleading and loaded "question" elsewhere as the last battle in their self-appointed crusade AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: There is no crusade, and I am not forum-shopping. I need clarification from experts on this issue. I lost the debate and I accept that. Done, finished. I accept the verdict. Will I contest it? I am still considering my options. Please, stop accusing me of bad faith. Besides, I am beginning to accept the fact that Palestine should be listed separately (only from 2013 onwards, though), after a lot of soul-searching the past night. Kosovo, on the other hand, I remain ambivalent.--Neve–selbert 08:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You really need to start listening to others. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment User in question, Neve, has repeatedly demonstrated preference for his personal opinion over reliable sources over and over again through out many discussions related to Palestine. @Sean.hoyland: has first hand experience dealing with this issue. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am no expert, I just assumed from the media that Palestine wasn't free from "those Zionists". Perhaps this is all propaganda indeed.--Neve–selbert 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Withdraw This report should be withdrawn, ASAP. The behaviour of Spirit Ethanol was regrettable but, then again, so was mine. I apologise for the any inconvenience caused.--Neve–selbert

Unfortunately, as this thread has come to focus on your behaviour, I don't think that requesting the thread be closed, despite your being the OP, is going to fly. That being said, I would propose that a final warning be issued and that should future transgressions in this article area be reported, they would be sent to arbitration enforcement and dealt with appropriately per the discretionary sanctions that have been authorised by Arbcom. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I understand. I regret my rash actions & I would like to move on from this. I accept the verdict and I shall continue to edit constructively.--Neve–selbert 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I am not an administrator, i can only propose and leave it up to the wider audience to determine the consensus for this action. Blackmane (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Resolved for the time being.Reporting party blocked for 3 days per this report at AN3.--TMCk (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring two days after being warned plus 3RR breach using Meatpuppet duck

Please see this edit history [95] you can see that two of the editors accused of being meat-puppets here [96] managed to break the 3RR together. One of them [97] had not been active since 21:45, 27 February 2016 before returning to help his friend disrupt disambiguation pages over the past few days. User:Неполканов on the other hand was warned about Edit warring just 23:13, 16 March 2016 as was I after I brought it to attention here although I had not made 3 reverts in 24 hours. The last version by User:Saltedcake would seem best to restore. An second attempt to resolve the dispute between the last edit war and the current one was turned down on the grounds that this is a behavioral issue. Any suggestions please? YuHuw (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

According 3RR the revert of sockpuppet editor is permitted exemption, I have revert of Yuhuw's sockpuppet new IP. I have added it this IP to the Yuhuw's active investigation 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs)

The previous time that YuHuw complained about Неполканов on WP:ANI was on 16 March. The dispute was over Karaimism. But there was a conduct problem. Suggest readers have a look at Talk:Karaimism. Неполканов tried to engage over content, where as YuHuw replied using ad hominem arguments.

YuHuw tried the WP:DRN on 17 March, but his post on WP:DRN consisted only of comments on the other editors. WP:DRN explicitly says that you should not do that. In any case, at the same time as posting on WP:DRN, YuHuw launched sock-puppet allegations against Неполканов.[98] WP:DRN does not deal with cases whilst they are being dealt with in other forums such as WP:ANI or WP:SPI.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that YuHuw is suspected of being a block-evading sock of User:Kaz. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the basis of other editor's complaints against and reverts of YuHuw is the view that he is a sockpuppet, it would be ideal if the open SPI, which was filed February 7th, could be resolved one way or the other. There is a lot of content there to process but this feuding is going to continue on article talk pages, user talk pages and ANI until it is decided that YuHuw is a sockpuppet or isn't one. If he is, he'll face a block but if he isn't, I think that the editors who oppose his edits will have to find some policy-based reasons to do so instead of their suspicions that he is a sock. And the retaliatory SPI YuHuw filed just made things more complicated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I am not a sockpuppet. I have offered many times to prove my identity to the Wikimedia foundation but have not yet been afforded the opportunity. I would like to draw attention here though please to how Toddy1 who is not even mentioned in this complaint nor at the page in question *ALWAYS* steps in to mollycoddle Nepolkanov. I do not believe there are any sincere Admin who will believe the lies of these birds of a feather and seriously take their word for it rather than check deeply into all the pre-facts leading up to this complaint. Certainly I make mistakes concerning wiki policies unlike you Toddy who expertly works the system, but I am still relatively new here and I think I have done very well to catch up to your tricks in such a short amount of time. There is a sort of catch-22 situation here where no solutions are able to be suggested. Dispute resolution was sabotaged by Toddy1 calling me a sockpuppet so that door is closed as long as Toddy1's sockpuppet investigation is open. YuHuw (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to involve myself in an affair like this, but i did revert an edit for unexplained removal of content. If we have the word "sockpuppet" being thrown around, shouldn't we be gathering evidence? 14:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltedcake (talk • contribs)

MfD end run GAME

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. Userpage kept at MfD, so someone moves it to mainspace to see it deleted under the higher standards of AfD. A disingenuous move of someone else's userpage. WP:GAMEing to subvert the consensus at MfD. Blatant refusal to accept the obvious consensus at WT:N that the WP:GNG is not to be applied to userpage drafts. WP:TEAMing, by the page mover and the AfD nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac [99]
• Ricky81682 [100]

This is a little crazy. The page should be userfied and the AfD closed. It was a user page moved into main space and then immediately nominated for deletion so clearly the editor didn't think it met notability standards. It should have been left as a user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No notification to me of this thread, just happened to see the topic. It is disingenuous to vote to keep a topic that you think does not belong in the encyclopedia and even more so to start an ANi thread about someone taking action to make usable something you want kept. There are tons of stubs out in mainspace waiting to be expanded and this is just one more. If the topic passes GNG, great, and if not, that is ok too. Let editors decide. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the question is not on the material itself, but the fact that almost no one, not even yourself, believes it passes GNG, but it was moved to the mainspace seemingly with the intent to have it AFDd. It makes it seem that the thought process in your head is as follows: "Oh, it survived MfD because GNG does not apply to the user space. Let's move it to the mainspace so it can be deleted!"

I'm not really sure what I think of this mess. It brings up the question, why should stale drafts be deleted? No one seems to agree on that. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caring for our Watersheds

I'm sure there are more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not a conduct issue. Just move it back to user or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is most definitely behavioural. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F was very clear, almost personally, to Legacypac. This GAME of moving his MfD userpage nomination failures unilaterally to mainspace for himself or Ricky to immediately nominate at AfD citing the GNG is even an openly declared strategy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability

Re, "just move it back", there is the issue that non-admins can't actually do this, since it requires moving over a redirect. Also, moving it back would almost certainly result in Legacypac moving it again, and I don't want to start a move war. A2soup (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability. Very much related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is the accusation that I'm teaming up to nominate the page for AFD along with closing the MFD discussion? I'm just closing these MFD discussions and there's been more than enough at MFD with people moving them to mainspace in the middle of MFD and removing the MFD notice. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H. (2nd nomination) and Rohit Varma for one by DGG. If Legacypac is doing that with non-notable pages, then anyone can nominate them for deletion but most of the moves seem fine to me. The RFC on these moves basically came back as no consensus due to not being specific enough. I nominated the Watersheds for AFD specifically with the option to draftify since it didn't seem to qualify for mainspace. I think the issue is the question of what exactly is to be done with many year old drafts that possibly (?) aren't ready for mainspace. That and the repeated accusations of some kind of cabal-like behavior based on the very few interactions going on at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are connected in that Legacypac is drawing from your list of so called stale pages, and in at least two cases have AfDed a userpage that legacypac moved to mainspace in bad faith. I would call on you to not enable this activity. Yes, Legacypac is doing many justifiable userspace-to-mainspace moves, but amongst them are some pretty bad faith MfD end runs, moving userpages to mainspace where he well knows they will be promptly deleted per AfD standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is a large amount of mind-reading as to why Legacypac is doing whatever he is doing in this area, and I personally agree with Ricky81682 that the moves look helpful and in good faith. If someone's research and writing appear useful to the encyclopedia, then by all means move it to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• The move by Legacypac is at the very least WP:POINTy. He directly stated in the move rationale that he didn't think it was notable, and yet he moved to mainspace anyway. I don't think Ricky's behavior is problematic. Assuming good faith, he saw an article that wasn't notable in the mainspace and nominated it for AfD, exactly as he should in that situation. ~ Rob^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of the page moves are an end run around the communities lack of agreement for the wholesale deletion of drafts. One random example is Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline. Legacypac moved it from userspace to mainspace where it was A7-ed. Yet Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace was abundantly clear that A-criteria do not apply outside mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've CSD'd thousands of stale drafts and promoted hundreds of them to mainspace. The complaining deals with a few borderline cases. I actually thought the Hack and Smack one was notable (it is a long running Hollywood star studded event that has received a lot of press) and was surprised to see it deleted A7 by an Admin. I'm doing productive sorting of stale drafts. The complaint is only armchair quarterbacking. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• No action: Not an ANI issue, as others have noted. The purpose of draftspace is to draft articles. This is just an illustration of how current MfD practices are woefully inadequate to the task of handling the draft namespace. Draftspace MfDs are essentially a catch-22: The purpose of draftspace is to prepare an article for eventual movement to mainspace. MfD won't consider notability of a draft because a draft isn't an article. So we're left with a continuous parade of abandoned drafts on subjects that weren't notable when written, and never became notable in the ensuing years. Call it an IAR move. Something has got to give. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Certainly an ANI issue. I have userfied the page and closed the AfD. Legacypac has been completely open with this strategy: the edit summary from Graffiki sums it up nicely: move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying. I have left the following comments at User talk:Legacypac along with a warning not to continue these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What a disruptive move on your part, threatening me for moving a marginal article to mainspace - i even tagged it appropriately for cleanup. Why are you overriding another Admin's AfD and the opinions of other editors that this should be deleted? Sitting in the userspace of a long gone user accomplishes nothing. 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MSGJ's action here is closer to a supervote than anything else. Even if the move to mainspace was wrong, unilaterally closing an AfD with good faith !votes in support of deletion, before the discussion had been open for 7 days, would be just as wrong if not more so. Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said above, this is yet another illustration of how woefully inadequate MfD has become for addressing article drafts. Legacypac should be commended for being bold and trying to find a resolution for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Can someone please tell me what use it is to retain non-notable stale drafts created by drive-by users who left immediately half a decade ago? Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Better to wait for an editor who cares about the topic to look into it than to have legacypac mass-process them all throwing out notable drafts amongst them, and alienating once productive Wikipedians now on wikibreak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't move the goalposts. Softlavender asked about a very specific scenario that didn't involve people on wikibreak, and involved a draft that hadn't been touched in a half-decade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an MFD discussion for deleting a page of a user who hasn't been active since 2005 opposed heavily on the basis that the user didn't put up a "retired" tag on their page meaning that they could return after a decade. To some people, a half-decade or longer could be a wikibreak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And how would an editor "who cares about the topic" find such a non-notable userpage draft? And who would such an editor be that would even find a userpage draft on a non-notable subject? Moreover, unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors find userspace material using internal Wikipedia searches, or WhatLinksHere from related topics. The issue is Legacypac GAMEing to delete old drafts on notable topics. Deciding Wikipedia-notability requires extensive source searching and analysis, it is not defined by the current state of the page. Spam and promotion are irrelevant to this discussion, no one opposes deletion of spam and promotion. What this is about is Legacypac moving userspace drafts on possibly notable topics to mainspace so that they will get deleted, when the page has already been kept as a userpage, or draft page, at MfD, or he knows full well that it would be kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Re "non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches" - this is a common argument, but it's actually not true at all, and hasn't been for some time. As documented at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Namespace and robots.txt, all of userspace and draftspace are automatically noindexed. You can verify this yourself by trying to find these drafts through Google. I've done it and found that, ironically, all you can find is the deletion discussion. So deleting the pages actually gives them marginally more exposure than leaving them be. For stale pages with mild to moderate promotion issues, the best option is clearly to blank and replace with {{Userpage blanked}}, which is actually the remedy recommended by WP:STALEDRAFT. A2soup (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The attitude I've been seeing since I showed up at MfD seems to alternate between "someone might use it someday" (but contrast WP:XBALL) and "the policy page doesn't say we should delete it" (usually referring to the explicit wording of WP:STALEDRAFT, which suggests a whole host of non-delete outcomes for things that will never be used in yet another half-decade). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The logic here beats me. MFD is just getting weird. Ten year old drafts of Hitler have opposition to deletion. 18 month old press releases in Mongolian about stock issuances get opposed. Eight year old copies of mainspace articles get opposition. Nine year old drafts of the article for WWI in the userspace of a vanished user are opposed. We have non-admin closures for a crazy contentious discussion to keep a single sentence after five years when a draft already exist based on other identical discussions while relisting get reverted until an RFC about whether "Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions" is resolved. I don't agree with it but I understand Legacypac's frustration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's inclusionism gone mad. The arguments posted by the opposers are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal favorite at the moment is this MfD in which it's been claimed that deleting content copied-and-pasted from a web source as a copyvio is inappropriate because it serves to BITE the creator, who might be an employee or volunteer for the subject, and who hasn't followed the instructions at WP:DCM, and who has been blocked for having a promotional username and engaging in promotional edits (and not merely a UAA "you only have to change your username" block). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer why we are deleting userspace drafts, the process found about 50 hoaxes just from one user: [101] and it took me just a couple minutes of checking to find this nonsense User:RickyIsNinja/The_Ooba_Jooba but hey maybe we should save that in case someone can establish notability or wants to work on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a slam-dunk delete to me because it's either a hoax or something made-up for off-wiki purposes. Even hardcore inclusionists should see that. I've gone ahead and MFD'd it. clpo13_(talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The more appropriate and efficient action for a blatant hoax to to speedy delete per WP:G3. But in any case, to the best of my knowledge, neither I not anyone else has opposed the MfD deletion of a demonstrated hoax. Contrary to their statement above, Legacypac has repeatedly stated that the purpose of deleting userspace drafts is to clean up userspace, with no mention of hoaxes. A quick look at their MfD noms will also show that hoaxes are a very small proportion. A2soup (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If we MfD this User:Rileyboss/Michael smith's dick someone will argue we should not be tampering with userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And accuse whoever nominated it of being a busybody, most likely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A userpage draft should not be kept indefinitely. It was last edited by the editor who created it in March 2011. If there is no policy on drafts covering time limits for drafts then policy covering the matter should be created. How many years can a draft be kept in usepage before it is deleted or moved to mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there's enough apathy regarding drafts and MfD generally that the jurisprudential practices there have turned it into a walled garden. The suggestions in WP:STALEDRAFT are particularly disconnected from reality. Redirecting drafts to mainspace articles that never had content from them, simply blanking drafts comprising unsourced BLPs, keeping and stubbing copied-and-pasted web content with no evidence of permission. These things would never happen in any other deletion process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting relistings by admins and demanding RFCs on the matter wouldn't happen elsewhere either. The problem is it's easy to come with the hypothetical "fearful user who returns after a decade distraught that the one-sentence text he started in 2007 was deleted" but that's not the reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup's point hoaxes are one of many reasons the continued objections to cleaning up user space are inappropriate. We keep hearing that we should leave userspace alone, but there is copyvio, attack pages, and ofher issues there. Here is another example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pope_Pope/Aye_Phyu_Phyu_Aung -surely this should be kept in case she becomes a famous person and someone can use this as background material. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's GAMING occurring here. Given how much these two edit on XfDs, I'd need a lot more evidence to be convince this wasn't just coincidence.

How about we discuss an expiration date for stale draft pages instead? Frankly I buy the arguments above that there's no reason to keep old abandoned drafts, especially ones with minimal content. I'd think anything older than 3 years should just be deleted outright unless someone thinks it's remotely worth of stub or higher status in the mainspace and approaches GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The GAMING is apparent in Legacypac's comments in the MfD discussion: "If not deleted here I will promote to mainspace on the strength of the Keep votes." To which I (the sole Keep vote) responded, "Emphatically, I do not advocate promoting this article to mainspace in its present state - I am not arguing for that." Nonetheless, Legacypac moved the page immediately after MfD closure with the move summary "stale draft that survived MfD because editors refused to consider notability". If that's not evidence of the GAMING descirbed, I don't know what is. A2soup (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar case of User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki, which Legacypac moved to mainspace with the move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The best evidence for GAMING is Legacypac's comment here, in an MfD discussion where they explicitly lay out their plans for what they are doing now: "If you keep voting to keep draft articles on non-notable topics, I'll moved them into article space and AfD them. When they are deleted by the larger community thr dtaft turned in a redirect will be deleted too." A2soup (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I have no objection to removing copyvio, atttack pages, and many other issues from userspace. I think that speedy deletion per WP:G12 (copyvio) and WP:G10 (attack pages) are more efficient avenues than MfD, and will sometimes say so, but I do not oppose those deletions. What I strenuously object to is deleting userspace drafts for notability issues, which was the question at stake in this case and the others that I have complained about. Non-notability in userspace is not problematic because the pages are not part of the encyclopedia and are not indexed in search engines (deletion discussions are indexed, so deletion ironically give these pages more visibility than they would otherwise have).

I have yet to see a reason why deletion of non-notable stale userspace drafts benefits the encyclopedia compared to the alternatives of removing from the stale drafts category or blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}. In addition, it has the definite drawbacks of 1) taking up admin time, 2) increasing the visibility of the pages, 3) making material difficult to retrieve (even if the subject is not notable, some of the information may be useful in another article, which may not have been created yet), and 4) alienating editors, since userspace is generally considered a private workspace, as long as the work is not problematic.

As a final note, Legacypac states above that they are "cleaning up user space". This practice is is in direct contradiction with WP:MFD, which states: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." That Legacypac is not only persistently disregarding this policy with their MfD noms of stale non-notable drafts, but also disregarding the policy through GAMEing tactics, is the subject of this ANI report. A2soup (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the benefits of deleting userspace drafts, user pages are not private workspaces (see WP:UP#OWN). Users no more own their user pages than they do their contributions to articles. The only way to ensure information on Wikipedia is not changed or deleted is to keep it somewhere else. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that userspaces are not technically private workspaces. I am arguing that they are usually treated as such when non-problematic, which makes clearing out stale drafts in userspace apt to offend editors and therefore undesirable. A2soup (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering how broken MfD is, referring to its landing page for an indication of the only ways in which it may be used is almost comical. It's not a policy page, or even a guideline page. It's a process description page referring to what is quite possibly the most broken deletion process right now. At the end of the day the entire purpose of userspace drafts (and draftspace drafts) is to write articles that will someday become articles. Okay, it takes up admin time: Let's create a CSD process if these pages are uncontroversially useless. It increases the visibility of the pages? A couple weeks listed at MfD is a joke compared to the years most of these have spent getting indexed by Google. Making the material difficult to retrieve is a reasonable complaint, but where we're talking about drafts that have no hope of becoming articles, there's almost never anything to retrieve. Finally, alienating editors? What's worse: Deleting a draft that has zero hope of becoming an article written by someone who created nothing else; or leading editors on by keeping a hopeless draft at MfD only for them to submit it to AfC to get declined again and again (or moved to mainspace where it gets A7'd or AfD'd immediately)? And how is unilaterally blanking someone's sandbox any less bitey? At least MfD gives an explanation beyond an edit summary, as well as shows an inexperienced editor that it wasn't some roving tyrant of an admin who shat on their userspace, but an actual discussion by more than one person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if the answer to this is in the giant thread to this point, but why isn't indexing of drafts disabled? I realize that makes them less visible to editors who could help bring the draft to usefulness (though I wouldn't be surprised if that's never happened in the history of the universe), but maybe that's the dividing line between draftspace and mainspace -- in draftspace, someone's got to either get the thing to a minimally acceptable point on his or her own, or explicitly recruit others to help make that happen. Probably these comments will seem hopelessly uninformed to those who hang around the draft process a lot. EEng 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked on it myself. Looks like userspace did get noindexed as of around November (though the INDEX magicword apparently still works there to override it), and draftspace is also noindexed by default (no idea when that was implemented). All that said, most of the disputes at MfD are over userspace drafts from before 2014. But on the other hand, MfD is also noindexed by default. So is all of AfD. So the whole argument about giving new prominence to something that should be deleted is kind of a wash (though I'd point out that virtually all the userspace drafts getting nominated were indexed for years before getting nominated, so even then... it's a drop in the bucket if MfD increases that prominence). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "MfD is also noindexed by default." - Sorry, this just isn't true. I don't understand why you're saying it. I spend a lot of time googling stuff at MfD. Try it yourself, run these google searches on userspace drafts currently at MfD: [102] [103] [104] What comes up? Maintenance categories, deletion discussions, and not the page itself. A2soup (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, closed MfDs are noindexed by default. {{mfd top}} transcludes a noindex flag. Perhaps active MfDs should be noindexed as well. I think that's something worth discussing, don't you think? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see my comments weren't so hopelessly uninformed after all. EEng 02:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal. If the stale draft is not going to be deleted then it should be blanked. I will replace the draft with {{Userpage blanked|reason=stale}} Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would support. Better and easier than deleting them through MfD. Can we get a threshold for "stale" though? If we can agree to a certain time limit, we could employ a bot to go through and do the work for us based on date of last edit. I mentioned 3 years as a limit above, but was just a number I pulled out of thin air. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is just talking about the specific page that gave rise to this thread, which absolutely should happen. As a general principle I support 3 years after last edited, or 1 year after the editor stopped editing, whichever happens first. But I think anything we come up with here will get contested. I don't have a lot of faith that anything other than "leave it alone" will happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I generally share your pessimism but it's something easy enough to propose and see what folks think. I'd be happy to start the proposal (on VP perhaps) and see where it goes. Don't think it will get far, but would rather try and fail then just let it continue as is. I think your extra 1 year stipulation is a good one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a policy for time limits. Time limits should be added to policy or we are going to end up at AN/I again when another stale draft is found. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, VP is a good start. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Yeah, any policy change would have to be over at VP, right? Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change. On another note, I support your proposal if you're just referring to this particular ANI filing. (Assumed/Misread that you mean all drafts and kinda ran with it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please make the policy change. My proposal is for the one stale draft. My second proposal is for all drafts as soon as policy is changed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:STALE suggests one year, but that's only for userspace drafts. AFAIK, there's no time limit for draftspace. clpo13_(talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: @EvergreenFir: @Mendaliv: I drafted a comprehensive RfC about stale drafts some time ago: User:A2soup/MfD RfC. As someone with a lot of experience with the locus of the conflict, I formulated it to address precisely the main points of disagreement. I was told that it would not be helpful, so I didn't open it. Perhaps we could post it to VP or an appropriate talk page? A2soup (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think an RFC on policy views is not going to accomplish a ton. If the people who actually !vote on each discussion afterwards make different opinions, are we supposed to disregard that in exchange for what an RFC came up with? We don't close discussions based on what the people in an RFC think the policy should be, we close based on what was actually discussed in the discussion. The bigger issue is eight year old userspace copies of mainspace are being opposed under the guise of "rudeness". It's one thing to disagree with deletion but another to just insult and criticize every nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty is an example of a perfunctory nomination, with disregard to getting the facts of the details right. In short, it is an example of why the nominator cannot be trusted with his nominations. The error rate is too high. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is in the world is wrong with nominating an eight year userspace draft for an article that already has a biography of a living person out there? This is the textbook definition of WP:UP#COPIES. Are we supposed to just continue with changes to the templates, changes to the text and ignore the very real possibility of BLP violations because a user half a decade ago did some work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes your write sensibly, sometimes nonsense. Your textbook reading is incorrect, try reading it again. Independent creations on the same topic are not "COPIES". WP:UP#COPIES does not cover BLP problems, if there is a BLP problem, nominate on the basis of the BLP problem. What is wrong with nominating worthless harmless things? I may have forgotten to mention busywork, a failing you are obsessing with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change" No, there is enough of a problem of flagrant disregard of consensus at MFD, WT:MFD, CT:CSD, WT:DRV, WT:N, to say that editors should stop WP:GAMEing to avoid inconvenient lack of consensus, and the so called "problem" of old good faith article drafts in userspace is entirely a manufactured non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no functioning system to game here.

If someone's random user subpage does not exactly fit a narrow reading of a CSD, we are not supposed to bring it to MfD for an ever changing batch of nonsense reasons. Then a couple editors vote to Keep random nonsense pages because they will not consider GNG, but object to a move to mainspace because in their opinion the topic does not pass GNG! That just proves they considered GNG, though they say they can't or will not.

It makes sense that an active editor's new draft in userspace may not have enough refs or content yet to obviously pass GNG, so we give them a lot of leeway to work on it, but at some point after the editor is long gone, it is crazy not to make a judgement call on the page against GNG and then act on it. Editors who are actively cleaning up are met with attacks, insults, scorn and ridicule, and now dragged to ANi over a stupid situation the complaining editors created with their super narrow interpretation of guidelines.

Wikipedia is a public space for all to enjoy, kind of like a park. The current situation is like bystanders throwing bottles and insults at volunteers removing trash from a park, claiming someone might come looking for the trash later. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:GAME (openly declared as noted above) is to take a userpage not deleted at MfD (where WT:N affirmed that the WP:GNG does not apply), and move it to mainspace, knowing full well that it is not appropriate in mainspace, so as to see it deleted at AfD (where the GNG applies). WP:GAMEing is disruption. If you don't like consensus, you should abide anyway or seek to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First - I did not do that on the article you started this thread with. Second, if a draft article passes MfD it should go to mainspace and be tagged appropriately so it can be worked on by various editors. Let it sink or swim like everything else. Voting to Keep a page then arguing it is not notable is WP:GAMEing the system and is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, userspace is fine for draft material not ready for mainspace. I can't see anything but extreme immediatism in your position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682, A2soup, Clpo13, Mendaliv, and QuackGuru: I've typed up two versions of a VP proposal at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox7. On the talk page let me know what you think of them, if you prefer one over the other, see errors, etc. I'll move to VP after some feedback. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 3 years can easily revert the changes made and essentially reset the clock for another 3 years."
  • User:EvergreenFir, another 3 years is too long. There must be a time limit. I suggest changing it to and reset the clock for no longer than one year." QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like blanking because: -it is completely unilateral action by a single editor in an area likely no one is watching. there is no second set of eyes on the actin -it is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do to articles, talk pages and so on. -There is no value to the project, and the problematic material just stays a click away. -It leaves that stale page available to vandals to play with. -If restored, someone needs to find and delete the page anyway later Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking doesn't need review because it is only an ordinary edit. Fear of vandals unblanking near-harmless pages in userspace is an unfounded fear. But if you don't like blanking, then don't. Userspace is no_indexed back rooms where users can have their private pages. Userpage vandalism does happen, but only for highly active editors who engage the vandals first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's one view. Others have viewed blanking without notice as more disruptive than an actual MFD discussion. There's also no way to tell it's unfounded absent people watching the blanking. And as someone who has had to deal with users in the World's Oldest People space and various versions of Indian film biographies and the like, it is an unnecessary nuisance that can come back weeks and months later because it does not solve the actual behavior issues, namely instructing editors that they should either learn to work together on the mainspace version or go somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there is room for that debate. I don't think it has been played out before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Back on point

Let's get back to the main point here. Legacypac has been moving pages from userspace to mainspace, pages it seems like he doesn't believe will pass GNG. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, Legacypac listed the page for deletion (but there was no discussion about the actual draft at MFD) but that discussion was largely more about the "move to mainspace and then list for deletion" and ultimately was deleted, arguments aside. Otherwise, there are two instances where I closed an MFD discussion as moot because the page had already been moved to mainspace and then I separately listed the pages for deletion, both of which resulted in them being moved, one to draft and one returned. Fine, you can say I should have been more aggressive with both MFD closes (moving Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds to draftspace rather than let it go in mainspace and forcibly moving the other page back) but I think that's beyond my job here. There's no evidence other than the typical ridiculous speculation that this was some tagged-team effort to get the pages taken to mainspace for deletion and there's zero actual evidence that, other than Graffiki case, that Legacypac is actually moving these pages to mainspace to "game" them into an AFD for deletion. As seen above, we have some serious issues with the process at MFD which only can be solved with more eyes and people perhaps working out better explanation and methodologies than just accusing all the nominator (or also the admins closing these things) of being part of some grand conspiracy to I don't know "destroy" the userspace drafts from people who haven't been around here for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You'd need to show that Legacypac is not doing this in good faith. A lot of pages hang around in userspace for ever and should be either nuked under CSD U5 or kicked over the line into mainspace to sink or swim on their own merits. If the user is active then there's no problem, but if all they have ever done is write a userspace article on their band or whatever then housekeeping takes over. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you Guy. I'm not aware of any rule that says an editor can't start an article about something that turns out to fail AfD (most active editors have done that) and there is similarly no rule that says you can't promote a draft from draft or user space that fails an AfD. We have all been surprised that various articles pass or fail AfD so none of us have a perfect ability to predict what meets GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on rules. The purpose of Wikipedia is mainspace. Everythign else is subsidiary. A user who has not edited in years, whose user space is cluttered with personal web space or advertorial, is not contributing. If a user in good faith believes these articles are intended by the user - who is no longer around to ask - as genuine attempts at encyclopaedia content, then what's the problem with moving them to mainspace? Regardless oft heir objective encyclopaedic merit, this can be charitably interpreted is an attempt to actually help a user achieve what they presumably set out to do. And if the page is a no-hoper, then inactive users don't get indefinite free web hosting. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on obfuscation. Personal web space and advertorials have never been OK, are readily deleted, and are not relevant to this discussion. You appear to advocate that drafts should never be in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's anything actually contrary to policy or that qualifies as gaming were Legacypac intentionally moving drafts to mainspace so they could be run through AfD. A long-untouched draft in draftspace or userspace that is kept at MfD carries a strong implication that MfD considers it viable as a possible article. If there's consensus at MfD that a draft is viable then Legacypac would only be acting in line with that consensus to push it to mainspace. If anything, the disruption is coming from MfD itself, which allows drafts about non-encyclopedic subjects to be kept because there's a consensus against broadly applying WP:N to draftspace and userspace. If there's a consensus that a draft cannot be moved to mainspace because the subject is not notable, then why are we keeping it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day. Everything in WP:NOT bristles against the very idea that we should indefinitely host drafts of articles on non-viable subjects. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mendaliv, if that is you opinion, there is an open RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F awaiting your input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't even get thinly disguised 2011 link spam deleted at MfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SE19991/Move_Management Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Broaden NoIndex

Someone suggested broadening the No Indexing above. Let's no index MfD because it mainly deals with pages that are no index now. Also apply No Index to the stale draft category and similar. I don't know how to do that, but it would sure reduce how much prominance we are giving to junk by sending it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the header as I presume this is meant for the discussion above. I suggest that topic be taken to WT:MFD as it's not appropriate for ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably no discussion necessary. MfD is already in the robots.txt. WP:NOINDEX seems to also argue that you might also want to NOINDEX those pages? I'm not sure. Pinging TheDJ who added that point to WP:NOINDEX. If correct, we'd want to add <includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly> to {{Mfd2}}. This would get all new MfDs, but not ones that are open now (since {{Mfd2}} is substed), but those would get noindexed when closed. MfDs closed before September 8, 2009 probably don't have the NOINDEX flag either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135's behavior

For months, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented on me at the Charlotte135 talk page in inaccurate and disparaging ways. When I've pointed this out, noting that I would eventually do something about it, Charlotte135 continued, except in ways that do not mention my name; this is seen in spades in this section, which Charlotte135 retitled to take the focus from away from the topic ban. Charlotte135 also has a tendency to follow or track editors Charlotte135 has had significant disputes with, in ways I would categorize as WP:Hounding. For example, as noted here and here, with me, Montanabw and CFCF weighing in, Charlotte135 was hounding Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). And before Charlotte135 claims that it was because of WP:Copyright issues, I advise editors to look closely at that matter; Charlotte135 had started following Shootingstar88 before the WP:Copyright issues drama Charlotte135 became a part of in that case. And now Charlotte135 is following me. And by that, I mean that Charlotte135 has scoped my entire contribution history and is choosing to edit articles I am clearly involved with, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is clear by this inaccurate summary of my and Montanabw's editing, Charlotte135 is very aware of the type of articles I edit. Charlotte135 stated, "It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing." That section shows that Charlotte135 was testing the waters when it comes to what Charlotte135 can edit. For one, the "cursory minimal edits on other types of articles" wording speaks to the way Charlotte135 edits; the vast majority of Charlotte135's edits have been to the domestic violence areas, and related areas, on Wikipedia. Since Charlotte135's topic ban, Charlotte135 has been making minor editors to other articles, as if to indicate "Look everyone, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm branching out." For two, I mainly edit sexual articles, anatomy articles, medical articles, social topics and popular culture topics. And even though I edit many things on this site, Charlotte135 is suddenly popping up at the medical, sexual or gender articles that I heavily edit, including the obscure or relatively low-traffic ones, as seen with this edit made to the Vaginal disease article, and this edit made to the Facesitting article. Coincidence? I think not.

When Charlotte135's topic ban is brought up by me, such as in this recent case at Talk:Domestic violence, where I made a point to note that Charlotte135 was continuing a past dispute soon after the topic ban expired, Charlotte135 goes off on an irrelevant and inaccurate tangent about my block log, as if to try to paint me in a bad light and put us on equal bad footing; as seen here, administrator Boing! said Zebedee thankfully commented on my block log after I once again suggested that Charlotte135 actually get informed on my blocks before repeatedly commenting on them inaccurately. In that same section, I noted to Charlotte135, "You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. [...] I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. [...] Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me." As that section shows, Gandydancer and Johnuniq are also still concerned about Charlotte135's behavior. Whenever Charlotte135's disruptive behavior is addressed, Charlotte135 argues that I am simply being a bully, accompanied by a gang, and that my main goal is to discredit. In fact, Charlotte135 still fails to see any valid reason for the topic ban; this is evident all over Charlotte135's talk page. Charlotte135 plays the "I am the victim" card. And in this case at the Domestic violence talk page, Charlotte135 accused me of an agenda for removing a WP:Undue weight piece from the lead. I am at the end of my rope with this editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I crossed out the Urolagnia article above, because even though that article was added to my watchlist because of my concern about this this IP who eventually became this editor, I have yet to edit that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll first of all point out that Charlotte135 has edited topics related to the female reproductive system at least as early as last November, while Flyer22 Reborn accumulates hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily. That there is some intersection is hardly surprising. The allegedly hounding edits do not seem to be in furtherance of any dispute on those pages, with Flyer22 or anyone else.

The conflict between Charlotte135 and Flyer22 apparently began in October at Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_5#Claim_about_male_self_overestimating with a content dispute that Flyer22 almost immediately personalized. I first encountered the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Domestic_Violence_article, where it became quickly apparent that there was a simple resolution to the content dispute. I noted at the time the solution could have been easily reached had Flyer22 simply stuck to commenting on content rather than contributors.

Rather than accepting this resolution, Flyer22 continued to policy/forum shop by trying to get support from MEDRS Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_21. Note especially how CFCF's opinion changes after Flyer22 tells him what to think. Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page itselfWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Disruptive_editing_on_Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_.28medicine.29_by_CFCF to make it agree with Flyer22. I don't know if Charlotte135's present accusations of canvassing can be supported, but Flyer22 and CFCF should definitely be regarded as a tag team wherever they appear.

While my attention was elsewhere, Flyer22 brought Charlotte135 to ANI based on the insinuations that Charlotte135 was an MRA and impersonating a woman.[[105]] These are not policy-based reasons, and making these allegations was a conduct violation in itself. Astoundingly, Mark Arsten placed a 3 month topic ban on Charlotte135 rather than boomeranging as would have been appropriate.

Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas. This gives the impression of attempting to intimidate editors and exert WP:OWNership of articles. This has in the past been directed towards myself, and is certainly still on display with regard to Charlotte135.[106][107][108][109] It can even be seen in Flyer22's presumptuous refusal to "agree to" a 2-way interaction ban.

The above notwithstanding, Charlotte135 needs to drop the stick with respect to the question of symmetry or non-symmetry of genders in domestic violence. Regardless of the merits, its a point the community would like to move on from. I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, you were on the opposite side of CFCF and myself in these disputes, as should be clear to anyone who does their research on the matter. You mischaracterized things then, and you have done it again now. Case in point: Editing "hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily" via WP:STiki and Charlotte135 having some overlap with me in that way is one thing. Charlotte135 specifically targeting articles that I heavily edit (in a way that mirrors a tab on my contribution history), and obscure or barely-active articles that I edit, is another thing. Two, there was no WP:Forum shop violation. Three, CFCF and I are not as closely aligned as you make us out to be; I didn't even fully agree with CFCF and his proposals (again...doing one's research is a virtue). Four, there were no simple solutions at the Domestic violence article talk page when it came to Charlotte135's involvement; anyone is free to see what happened at that talk page during that time; they are free to see that Charlotte135 repeatedly failed to accept the literature with WP:Due weight, would ramble on about editor bias, editors being so and so, and that multiple editors were frustrated with Charlotte135 because of all of this. They will see exactly what led to Charlotte135's topic ban from the article. Another editor (Ongepotchket) is just the latest person to note that Charlotte135 is disruptive there. So you coming here and defending Charlotte135 and acting like the proposal and consensus for the topic ban on Charlotte135 were baseless and uncalled for makes not a bit of sense. If you are going to come to WP:ANI and defend a highly disruptive editor, then at least make a better case than that. As for your claim that "Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas.", it has gone on my top ten list of false claims made on Wikipedia. I do not make imperious demands, unless it's telling someone to stay off my talk page or to stop making false and inaccurate claims about me, as Charlotte135 repeatedly does, or to stop editing disruptively. And I have usually only noted that my preferred changes are inevitable when interacting with Charlotte135, since my preferred changes are policy or guideline-based and Charlotte135's preferred changes usually are not, and since Charlotte135 will waste editors' time with talk of supposed bias and repeatedly make false commentary and accusations of POV-pushing for following the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Furthermore, as many know, I have a very low tolerance for disruptive editors; I do not treat disruptive editors the same way that I treat productive editors (the top my user page and talk page are clear about that), and I never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Rhoark's claim that "Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page to make it agree with Flyer22," I advise editors to read that WP:ANI thread, which didn't end in any kind of sanction against CFCF or consensus that CFCF was in the wrong. CFCF was restoring the guideline to what it was before it was changed without consensus. And as a number of medical editors agreed, the guideline supported my arguments anyway. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go again Flyer22reborn. Aggressively belittling and demeaning other editors that simply disagree with you. What utter nonsense, following you. To the contrary, you have been following me. If I was interested in following you, why did I suggest this? [110]. As a number of editors have noted, you seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles as did the blocked editor shootingstar88 whom you befriended and was indefinitely blocked for extreme copyright violations and opening the project up to potential litigation by the authors of this original material they copied and pasted. IMHO you are far too personally involved in this emotional topic of domestic violence for some reason. I think it would be best for the project if you, and I, accepted Rhoark's neutral advice, and we both walked from this topic not just one of us, but both of us. I just don't care, to be honest with you, but I do believe your personal opinions on the topic and aggressive ownership of the article are preventing other fair minded editors from making neutral edits based on what the reliable sources actually say. That may then allow other editors to make changes if necessary without you and I bickering over nothing. It looks like at least 2 other editors on the talk page also disagree with you, not just me, and countless others you have scared away. Here's editor OpenFuture commenting [111] So, what do you say? You and I can then edit other topics and stay away from each other. Sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: And yet the inaccurate statements from Charlotte135 continue above. For example, there have been no number of editors who "have noted [I] seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles"; instead, what a number of editors have noted is that I help keep out severe WP:Neutral violations (especially as they relate to that policy's WP:Due weight section), and correct editors who misunderstand that policy. My contribution history is also nothing like Shootingstar88's.

Charlotte135, you are problematic when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics...period. Various editors have been clear about that. When various editors, ones not tied to men's rights activism, state the same thing about me when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics, then I will consider walking away from them. Right now, I am helping to keep the type of mess you want to add to these articles out of it. My supposed POV adheres to the literature with WP:Due weight. Your POV does not. The only true support you've had thus far is from those who are sympathetic to men's rights views or those who hold men's rights view. From here on out in this thread, I will not respond to you any further, since you cannot help but present matters inaccurately and tell falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep following me, despite your asinine denials, I will present a thorough case against you with diff-links making it explicitly clear that none of these articles you are suddenly showing up at are coincidental matters. And along with that thorough case, there will indeed be a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say7 Flyer22, it is clearly you who has been following every edit I make. And just as Rhoark and so many other editors you attack, demean, threaten and belittle, I could, and should provide a detailed list of diffs whereby you have obviously followed me. You are far from neutral on these gender topics. Everyone knows this. Further you aggressively attack other editors and exhibit ownership behavior on these articles. I just decided to stand up to you, that's all. Why not just walk away now if you are so neutral and let other editors clean up yours and shootingstar88's mess? If you do, I will. I just don't care, to be honest. But remember, I actually suggested an interaction ban, two way, well before you posted here. As you carefully cherrypick your diffs to include and not include, just like your sources and editing language, that was something you did not include above. Many editors have pointed this out to you, but you don't listen and your disruptive behavior is scary to be honest. But Rhoark and so many other editors has already pointed this out.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, your own contribution history on these gender based articles, most of which I have not edited, is almost identical to blocked user Shootingstar88's. Absolutely, no doubt about it. If any editor wants to see an actual SPA and real POV pushing anyone should scrutinize carefully Shootingstar88's entire edit history, and you Flyer22reborn, helping them create it, and then your desperate attempts at trying to get them unblocked for their severe copyright violations that open the project up to potential litigation. Something you fail to understand. And as administrator Diannaa told you, it would take several months, and three hours a day to clean up, and you assured everyone you would do it, and actively prevented other editors from going near Shootingstar88's copyright violation mess, which still remains in these gender related articles. Yes, I do find that particularly disruptive and damaging to the project Flyer22. Litigation from authors of original work that editors copy and paste into articles, is a real and definite threat to the project Flyer22reborn. It's their original work. They own the rights. You don't seem to understand or care.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone not involved in these broils, I think I might point out a trope or habit which consistently worsens things -- in my opinion, probably intentionally and unquestionably disruptively. Charlotte135 often replies to her adversary’s edits with direct address, and then repeats the name -- usually again with direct address -- later in the rebuttal, often as part of a rhetorical question. The effect is often to infuriate her interlocutor, first because it personalizes a content dispute, and second because English has a specific term for a rhetorical question posed in direct address. This is a taunt. The quality of breathless schoolyard taunting is accentuated because Charlotte135 often omits the comma required before the appositive direct address. We see all this in the paragraph above. We see it here [112]. It seems clear that either this editor wants to exacerbate tension or that their English (or perhaps their manners) are not up to the task of managing tension in these areas. There are lots of areas on Wikipedia that deserve attention -- biographies of women in the sciences, botanical articles on Australian plants.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone peripherally involved, and therefore targeted by Charlotte135, I have to agree with Flyer22reborn and MarkBerstein that Charlotte135 engages in WP:BAITing, and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing followed by personal attacks against Flyer; Charlotte135 was topic-banned for their behavior and we are less than a week back and once again Charlotte135 is doing exactly the same thing -- inserting nonsense edits with a "men's rights" tone, claiming innocence and neutrality, then baiting opponents until they are ready to rip their hair out. This needs to be stomped on, now. I suggest at last a 60-day topic ban on Charlotte135 and if this editor fails to learn their lesson, then indef bans are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

pinging Diannaa, since her name was invoked above. I'm sure her input would be clarifying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana said it very well and I am in complete agreement with her. In fact that includes the "tear your hair out" comment as I've often thought the same thing myself. Editors should not be tested to the end of their patience, as Charlotte is always so good at. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Charlotte's edits and I agree with the original posting and what others have said here. Charlotte is violating the spirit and letter of WP:HARASS, and is following Flyer around picking fights. Sanctionable and unwise, and something that Flyer seems to attract for some reason. I am with Monatabw and will make a proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll take a step past what Montanabw proposes and simply propose a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS with standard appeal available after one year. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Rhoark's neutral, objective and detailed comments above, talking about Flyer22reborn's disruptive and aggressive behavior, all we have is literally the same set of friends of Flyer22, Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog falsely accusing me of following their friend Flyer22?? With no evidence. And even though, and well before Flyer22 posted here, I was the one who suggested a 2 way interaction ban, to stop Flyer22 and her friends following, harassing and bullying me.

Obviously administrator Diannaa would be the only one to look at this please, and adjudicate and dare I say, have the courage as an administrator, to actually place sanctions on Flyer22reborn as well. I would respect their decision. However otherwise this is just like a gang at school bullying an individual for standing up to them, like Rhoark and others have tried to do, but got beaten down by Flyer22reborn's unrelenting aggression and fear tactics on Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that while Flyer22reborn and I are vacant from the domestic violence article, other editors are actually able to edit the article in the spirit of things. I hope this continues. However I fear that if Flyer22reborn were to be allowed to continue their editing at that article, they will again scare off other good faith editors trying to add content that is actually based on what the reliable sources say. Looking at the edit history on these articles Flyer22 seems to have engaged in many conflicts with many different opposing editors. And many editors have noted Flyer22reborn's lack of neutrality and POV pushing. Can I ask Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [113]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that John from Idegon has pinged Diannaa, and said "her input would be clarifying." I think this is appropriate as I don't see how friend's of Flyer22reborn, (administrators or editors) could possibly make any neutral and fair decisions on this matter.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A question to administrators please? Is contacting other editors/friends off or on Wikipedia a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? I have been reading the policy for a few days and I'd appreciate clarification. I must hastily add, so not again falsely accused of following Flyer22reborn, because once again they are over there at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, fighting it out with another editor. Flyer22reborn is once again over there now, demeaning, belittling and mocking another editor. My question though stands as when I brought it up before with Flyer22 and her friends, they called it ridiculous, and demeaned my understanding of the policy. Just like they Flyer22reborn seems to be doing again at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. I'd appreciate a neutral administrator to explain canvassing to me, especially here at ANI?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To all that, i will just say, wow. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wow. However Jytdog, you are very often called upon or pinged, to partake and support Flyer22reborn's point of view. It happended in a few conversations I've had in the past with Flyer22. And I'm sure if I did go through your edit history, which I certainly can't be bothered doing, there would be other instances over the years. Once again, boom, here you all are, right on cue. Is pinging in this way, for support, esp here at ANI a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? Probably best you don't answer. Same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. When good faith editors like me and others wonder if this is allowed or how much weight, editors opinions who are pinged, off, or on, Wikipedia, it is a valid question Jytdog, despite your sarcastic "Wow," in an attempt to discredit, demean and belittle, my serious question. I realize I don't have your experience here, so please excuse my ignorance.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the good work that Flyer is doing and I hate to think what some of our articles would look like if she had not stepped in. I support Jytdog's suggestion re a ban. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are grateful Gandydancer but I'm pretty sure the project will survive, and other good faith, neutral editors, were allowed to got on with the job based on what the reliable sources actually say, in these emotional topics, if Rhoark's sensible, fair and workable solution, of a 2-way interaction ban and topic ban for both me and your close friend Flyer22 was applied.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Can I ask administrator Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [114]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• A two-way interaction ban punishes the victim equally with the bully and is inappropriate; here it is crystal clear that Charlotte135 is the primary offender. I concur with Jytdog that perhaps admins could consider a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS. We have a pattern of hounding and vicious attacks on multiple people, gaming the system and manipulating what has actually been said and done across multiple articles. This editor needs a different sandbox in which to play. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Save the further abuse and scary talk Montanabw. It is very clear on my talk page User talk:Charlotte135 under the Questions & Answers header that this was going to happen again, and me be ganged up on. Please don't be so rude and dismissive of Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [115].

And why would I have suggested an interaction ban myself before Flyer22reborn posted here, if I was the bully. It is very clear the same old gang members or Wikipedia:Tag team are at it again. I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa prior to being set up, baited and then dragged over here. This discussion on my talk page is here [116] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [117]. My only mistake was to take the old tag team's bait and then be dragged back in so Flyer22reborn could post it here and the rest of the tag team come in on cue, and comment. Flyer22reborn's aggressive ownership of these articles needs to be stopped and Rhoark's solution of a "2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." But as I said, both is the only fair solution and Diannaa is the best person to adjudicate, not you Montanabw. Charlotte135 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While some admins adjudicate disputes, I am not one of them. Dispute resolution is not something I am good at. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with interaction bans is that they can sometimes increase tension between editors. Some editors become vigilant about enforcing an interaction ban and viewing crossing paths with the other editor as harassment and then we are back at ANI, often on a regular basis as an editor seeks sanctions for violations of an I-ban. Admins want to defuse conflict, not take measures that increase it.

It would be best if you two would voluntarily keep out of each other's way. These reappearances at ANI are not good for you, Charlotte135 or for Flyer22reborn. I would think since you are adults you could find a way to resolve this dispute without having to have admins imposing topic bans or blocks. You can see, by the fact that no admins have jumped into the discussion that there isn't a strong desire to impose sanctions on either of you. But that can change if you can't drop the stick and walk away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz while i hear that, the evidence here is very clear that Charlotte135 is pursuing Flyer in a very harass-y way. Flyer gets these men's rights activists who stick to her and do hound her, and "Charlotte135" is the most recent edition. This behavior is not OK. It is part of what makes WP a nightmare for some people. I really believe that a TBAN under the Gamergate DS is the way to diffuse tension here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So it's a new day. But still, the men's rights stuff is re-hashed, once again. Whoever you are directing that at this time Jytdog (and it seems at me I really, really, really think you and others should drop it. It is sounding pretty childish I have to say and I'm sure there are many editors here who would agree. This is something Diannaa and I have discussed and Diannaa gave me excellent advice, which I should have applied. That is, don't take the bait, and react to such attacks. I am a feminist Jytdog, for the record, and do actually identify as a feminist, but really who cares? Does that matter here? What I see by this mens rights nonsense that you, Gandydancer, Montabw, Flyer22reborn and a few others throw at other editors is bias and uncivil behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. I also wonder why it has been allowed to continue. It's offensive and disruptive to the project and goes against policy. Unfortunately it seems to have been a pattern over many years on Wikipedia talk pages I have noticed, and I actually think it needs to be stamped out permanently. I'm sure that other editors are adult enough to handle any biased editing, from any editor. However accusing people of being mens rights activists, in a desperate attempt to discredit them, should end right now. Please. Liz, I am an adult, so I can drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great Charlott135, if you steered away from the topics where Flyer edits. You are the one who steered into them. It is clear as day. You can absolutely make all this go away by just indeed walking away and stop pursuing her. If you agree to do that, this thread could close right now. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my genuine request to please drop the men's rights stuff Jytdog. At least with me. I really have had enough of it and consider it entirely unjustified, and a personal attack. I really would like you and others to stop that, if that's okay with you and your friends. And I have not "pursued" Flyer22reborn, contrary to what you say. However I have engaged in long winded mutual discussions and conflicts with Flyer22, which I am willing to walk away from. I will also try and avoid Flyer22reborn, wherever I can from here on. For my sanity, if nothing else. By you saying I have pursued or harassed her, does not make it true. And I think Liz was actually directing her advice to stop our bickering and conflict on the few occasions we do come into contact, not the false allegations, with no evidence, you are posting here to discredit me. And for the record my recent single edit to the domestic violence article, two or three other independent editors agreed with. Flyer22reborn deleted that sentence right before my topic ban expired, because we had discussed it at length in the past, and she knew it would provoke a reaction I'm sure (bait). I wasn't going to comment (take the bait), but I did, stupidly, and doing so fell right into her trap, and we all ended up here. Even that, I've let go of.

The problem here is that Flyer22reborn seems to have edited, to some degree, every single possible sexual topic on Wikipedia. And I really mean that, without exaggeration. It's quite incredible. That's okay, but are you, or anyone else actually saying I cannot edit any of those hundreds of articles? I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [118]. Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments seen here [119] at least provided some evidence as to Flyer22reborn's behavior, whereas no evidence has been provided to back up your accusations. My point again is yes Liz, I can definitely drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can, and have already taken the lead. I won't accept this one sided blame you and your friends are trying to stitch me up with again Jytdog, that's all. There is another solution here too. Let's all be adults here and work with me and be civil toward me if we cross paths. And I will pay you the same respect. I promise. However if you can't, or won't do that, I do insist that you, Flyer22reborn, Gandydancer, Montabw and a few others drop the mens rights BS, at least towards me. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to walk away, then agree to walk away. Don't turn back and try to "get" Flyer. If you will not agree to walk away from the GamerGate field then the community should TBAN you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, were you talking to Flyer22reborn too please? Jytdog, I've admitted getting into stupid 2-way bickering and conflicts with Flyer22reborn, which are not helpful and are disruptive, but I won't accept your false accusations of harassing or following her and definitely not accept you trying to now embroil me in any way in the gamgergate controversy and biased editing. Editor Rhoark and so many other good faith editors have also been offended and unduly scared away from articles by Flyer22reborn's aggressive and uncivil editing and men's rights labeling, and it needs to stop, or at least be tempered, rather than Flyer22reborn and the rest of the Wikipedia:Tag team, believe they are above any sanctions here on Wikipedia and continue to roam free. If I'm ganged up on again, rather than reading my comments above and how I have already taken Liz's two-way advice to "keep out of each others way" wherever possible, then so be it. However I'm hoping that neutral and fair administrators like Liz and Diannaa can again read my comments please, and look at my actual edits to articles, and make their own decision to close this thread rather than feel pressured by you Jytdog. IMO it also would have been appropriate and respectful to Liz, and the community, if Flyer22reborn had responded to Liz's fair suggestion to resolve this too. I'm pretty sure Liz and Rhoark were not just talking to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that a topic ban should be placed on Charlotte135.--MONGO 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Could you please provide one diff here as to why a topic ban?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MONGO Just so your opinion is neutral Mongo, and based on something, would you mind providing any actual evidence, reasoning and some diffs. Anything?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god please stop randomly bolding words. It doesn't make your argument any more impressive much like how using capslock doesn't make you more important. --Tarage (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god, I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is giving an excellent summary of what's been going on here and I suggest we take his advise on the solution. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. "advise" is spelt "advice". Administrator Liz, I have for my part, at least, taken your fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. What more can I do? The issue dragged here was my alleged interaction with Flyer22. Since my topic ban expired on the 15th, my editing has shown no bias, in any way, and no editor here has provided any evidence, not even a single diff to show otherwise. Please rule on this Liz. Surely there are other real cases to be dealing with. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is time for an admin to step in here; the parameters of this discussion are well-defined and Charlotte135 has taken the WP:ROPE. At a minimum, the topic ban needs to be reimposed. Charlotte135 IS taking the same tone of editing that got this editor their original topic ban, is stalking and harassing Flyer22reborn, and though Liz means well, a two-way ban is not going to work; Flyer DOES get targeted by men's rights activists and has any number of people who mean ill-will just waiting for an excuse to harass her further. This is Charlotte135's behavior we are looking at and Charlotte135's alone. The responses and personal attacks by this user toward just about every other user who weighed in here with any kind of critical commentary pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Perun" IP on an OR spree at 37.201.xx.xx

I recently noticed an IP adding something unsourced about the supposed Buddhist heritage of a Gallic tribe. It turns out this is a dynamic IP editing as, among probably others:

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

Their history is full of comparable edits, adding unsourced (or blog-sourced) content about historic topics most often pertaining to Poland and the god Perun, often on its face unremarkable (but unverifiable) and sometimes quite strange, as here where they consider the current arrival of refugees in Europe a case of "germanisation".

Is anybody familiar with this individual or MO, and are admin colleagues of the view that action such as mass rollbacks or blocks should be looked into?  Sandstein  09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calling that original research sounds a bit overly gracious. Nonsense is more applicable, but a descent into bovine scatology may also be warranted. Kleuske (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)s

There's a number of Other IP's, too.

• 37.201.7.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Interesting first contribution.
• 37.201.4.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moreover, Geradid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a very similar interest.

There's also a fair amount of quacking going on. Is it duck season or wabbit season? Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me a list of pages and I'll protect them. I'm pretty familiar with this Perun nonsense. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to qualify that. It would have to be pages with recent multiple edits relating to this, I can't protect pages rarely edited by this person. I'm no good at range blocks sadly. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a list of affected pages, or if I did I'd protect them. @Doug Weller:, do we have a community ban on record somewhere so that this stuff can be reverted on sight?  Sandstein  16:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Of course you would. Sadly no. This is the first time the Perun nonsense has been brought here. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for the "Perun" disruptive editor

Let's make it official, then. For longterm disruptive editing by inserting unsourced and implausible content into historical articles, notably relating to the god Perun, the person who has edited from the IP range 37.201.xx.xx among others, as noted above, is banned from Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer.  Sandstein  10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems nothing else will work. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yossimgim IPs

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continue trolling, edit-warring and lying in edit summaries using dynamic IPs (for now it's 79.176.91.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). It's almost a month since discussion started here and here, and nothing been done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Still waiting for that SPI to get some admin attention, but what evidence do you have for this IP? Need to support accusation with diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

In October last year a report was made of an IP editor persistently disrupting the F1 project here. A block was issued for a week by user:Diannaa and two further blocks were subsequently issued by the same admin. The IP editor however has continued in much the same vein and several members of the F1 project have spent considerable amounts of time, trying to make something of his sub-standard submissions. There have been seven six recent drafts which have been found to be copy-vios two of which have been WP:TE re-submitted several times without fixing issues noted on review and also removing citation tags. There is a tremendous history of disruptive editing by this editor whose IP address changes sometimes more than once a day. He's now up to more than 100 different IPs in the ranges 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Just some of the history of his edits can be seen at User talk:Bretonbanquet who has been one of the editors involved in 'tidying up'. We have tried several times to engage and leave helpful advice on talk-pages but it is not certain which of them he might have seen and he has been known to just blank the page. Here is a diff of him removing a talk page post by another editor and here is one example of an inappropriate edit summary, although he rarely leaves summaries. The F1 project would be grateful for any assistance you can give as we have run out of patience with this editor who has been given plenty of time and more than enough leeway to edit in a conventional manner. I apologise for the long-winded submission. Please let me know if you need any further info. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The latest series of posts on the subject at the F1 project is here. Eagleash (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier threads on the subject here and here. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I second all of the above, and I can say I've rarely come across an editor who takes such little notice of notability guidelines, or indeed, any guidelines. He almost never engages with other editors, and when he does it's usually uncivil; he never uses talk pages or heeds advice, and creates a huge amount of work for others. He has created large numbers of articles and templates, all of which were either copy-violations, unreadable or not notable (or a combination of the three), and all of which required rewriting, merging or deleting by other editors. To make it worse, it's hard to track the guy's activity as he is forever switching IPs; so you can't talk to him or pin him down long enough to get him to understand how things work.

This has been going on for a few months now, and some of us seem to spend all our time cleaning up after this guy, when we would rather be doing something more constructive. Any ideas will be gratefully received. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm an AfC reviewer, and another issue that was brought to my attention regarding this editor was possibly gaming the system. Anonymous contributors are not allowed to create articles directly into mainspace—that's why WP:AFC was started. However, this user has tried to circumvent the standard AFC article review process by first requesting the creation of a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, then turning the redirect into a non-notable article once it is created—effectively creating an article in mainspace. An example is with March 87P. At 20:12, 1 February 2016, the user submitted this request to WP:AFC/R, asking for a redirect from March 87P to March 87B. The issue is, at that time, March 87B was a redirect. Three minutes later, at 20:15, the same editor converts the March 87B redirect into an article, which was found to be non-notable. Then, a few weeks later, the redirect request was accepted, creating March 87P as a redirect, which an IP in the same range converted to an article about the same subject. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In relation to the above post, the same editor has recently had deleted, a draft for Wolf Williams, as it was both non-notable and also a copy vio. A re-direct already exists for Wolf Williams to the Williams F1 page. A re-direct has now been requested for "Wolf Williams Racing" , which could mean further attempt to create a Wolf Williams page. Also in relation to the March 87P page, it had to be protected after the IP edit-warred over restoring the re-direct. Eagleash (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the IP keeps going on daily. It would be really appreciated if an administrator had a look into it our gave us some advice.Tvx1 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone going to take a look? Tvx1 17:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Today, the IP inexplicably removed a mass of content from a F1 article. There's more disruptive editing to be found in their contribs of today. Will someone please take a look at this? Tvx1 18:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: for comment as to the level of collateral damage in range blocking 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The most recent contributions have been, I think, from the 92.21.250.0/24 and 92.21.240.0/22 ranges with no other contributions that I can see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but neither of the range-contrib tools I use is working right now, so I have no way to check for collateral damage. I last checked on February 20, when they were both busy ranges in the UK, too busy for a range block. (Adding) Regardless, issuing blocks for creating articles on non-notable topics is not something I am prepared to do. It's not a blockable offense in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the only type offense we're complaining about. It's also the unexplained removal of chuncks of content, persistent reverting of redirects, gaming the system, complete lack of intent to colleborate with us, etc...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INCIVIL and WP:BADFAITH behaviour by User:SchroCat

Would an admin cast their eye over the discussion at Talk:Works of Keith Floyd#Requested move 17 March 2016. I'm afraid I did rise to the bait a bit, but I think the stalking and harassment accusations are a step too far. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. What a fucking waste of time. Sinden has followed SchroCat around like a fart in room. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, I would say. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that other means of dispute resolution be followed here. Clearly this spat is of no interest in general, all concerned editors should play nicely from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Rambling Man is right. BLUDGEONING and INCIVL are present, but looks just like hot heads and bad blood. I'd also recommend everyone involved take trip to the fish market to select a nice refreshing trout to cool yourselves with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where is your evidence that I have followed anyone around? I made a simple WP:RM (that I happened upon because the article stuck out like a sore thumb in a category) and was subjected to the usual abuse[120][121] which has come to be expected from this editor, abuse which is then backed up by the usual suspects[122]. Heaven forbid if you try to make any kind of edit that to an article these editors have worked on. This kind of repeated behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked. So I might be wrong in this case, so what? There is no need for the bullying. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC at Donald Trump

After a long Talk discussion regarding whether an edit at Donald Trump violates WP:original research, one of the involved editors initiated this RfC which IMO is outrageously non-neutral. I'm requesting that an admin take a look and decide whether that is indeed the case. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After numerous efforts to reach a compromise, there continued to be resistance to achieve consensus, even after language was proposed to provide the clarification that would answer the objections to the compromise. This language that is the subject of the dispute was reliably-sourced, was material to the article, and was crafted with compromise language made in good faith. After the nature of the objection to the compromise was revealed to be possibly politically-motivated, I asked for a RfC. That the RfC is being escalated here with an apparent intention for trigger negative repercussions for asking for a RfC shows that there could be a negative motivation here, possibly retaliatory. The record is clear about the discussion that took place on the Talk page, and the RfC was appropriate given the moving of the goalposts used to object to the good-faith compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC does seem to be in the appropriate format of "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). It's confusing to know what this RfC is asking for for those editors who have not participated in the previous discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC describes the initiator's own efforts as being in good faith and using reliable sources, while suggesting that the opposition is affected by political bias. That doesn't seem neutral to me. It also completely mis-represents the issue raised by the opposition.CFredkin (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For this RfC, I wasn't presuming to ask to be able to effect the compromise language before we received other opinions about the compromise language. The RfC was asking for other editors to comment about the compromise language. Because there were blocks to consensus, I was hoping that the input of other editors could help us reach a consensus. Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The RFC doesn't actually help give any information that an outside viewer would need to make an opinion. It doesn't matter if you have 100 diffs about the efforts you've made unless your goal is to make it a puzzle for others to figure out your actual point here. Otherwise, it's not so not neutral as almost borderline useless. Point to the actual discussions and let people see for themselves, not just your comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC is mal-formed. The opposition to the content is based on WP:original research, since the sources for the content under discussion don't actually mention Donald Trump (with the exception of a WSJ article that actually states that Trump was not actively involved). The source of the disagreement is not accurately described at all in the RfC.CFredkin (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what each side is based on. A simple "I'd like to add this edit and here is the previous discussion" is all that's needed. This level of complexity you guys on all sides are making this is absurd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To bring clarity, I will copy down the compromise language (links to which exist in the RfC), and move to amend the RfC to ask people to approve the compromise language. Thank you for this feedback, and my apologies. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the view that the RfC is mal-formed. I would propose closing the current RfC and starting over once agreement on the question is reached. Springee (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have copied the compromise language to preface the RfC, and editors are responding to the RfC on the talk page. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And then the wording is alleged change again in the middle of it. The RFC keeps changing what the actual wording is intended to be so all the "include" support is based on different versions of the exact language. Is the closer supposed to presume that an early include supports all later versions? Is the closer supposed to review and analyze all the time stamps to see if all the concerns have been resolved? It seems like a poorly designed RFC all around starting with a focus on defending the arguments above rather than actually giving people a neutral question (should this language be included or not). I suggest shelving it and starting over with the actual wording in separate headings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the filer. That RfC is not neutrally worded at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor's personal behaviour in Basque sensitive articles

This Basque conflict and prisoners articles have shown lately the intervention of the editor Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) with a long history of irregular editing. I should urge a prompt, conclusive intervention, the editor has lately engaged in some kind of campaign regarding these sensitive articles with no attention to detail whatsoever, breach of civility, extremely charged, confrontational style, personal attacks, and eventually threats against myself, leading to an unacceptable risk of lack of freedom to edit. He was warned by another user both of his behaviour and editing stye, but the editor remains basically the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

another user and me have no issue, we are both editing articles together productively, despite an initial misunderstanding. These are not "Basque sensitive articles". They are two ghost articles which have been surreptitiously written by ETA apologists, particularly the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, which is clearly not under the supervision of more than two wikipedia editors - Iñaki LL and the original editor who has deleted his account (or has been blocked, I don't know). The entire article is written in language which exalts, justifies and expresses sympathy towards Basque terrorists ETA. It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources. Its entire objective is to pass-off individuals in Spain condemned for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping etc.. for political prisoners of some sort. The opening paragraph is, in its entirely, a justification for ETA's existence and actions.

My "personal attack" against Iñaki LL was a indeed a bitter comment in Spanish (you are welcome to google translate it), following his systematic reverting of me removing a couple of the more outrageous statements in the article (the whole article is outrageous and offensive). He is offended by me stating he is an ETA apologist, when he has positioned himself as the defendor of this article in its current form. I stick to that claim and remind him that he is a citizen of Spain, a democratic country, where in our criminal code breaking law 10/1995 of 23 November is punishable with a prison sentence of one to two years: 'the exaltation or justification of terrorism by any means of public expression or diffusion.' You can find this in articles 571-578 of our criminal code. Wikipedia may not be censored but it is my duty as a citizen of Spain and the European Union to warn my fellow country men when they are breaking the law in a pretty vile way, particularly today when the continent is yet again hit by this scourge. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see there has been a heated discussion at Talk:Basque conflict#Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers but, Iñaki LL, I don't see that you presented any evidence/diffs of misconduct. I recommend that if you all have reached an impasse, that you move the discussion over to Dispute Resolution where a mediator can help you move to a resolution over content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, as I said to you on the Basque conflict page, I think you raise valid points, but I can tell you from many years' experience editing in that area that labelling people that disagree with you "serial terrorist apologists" is ill-advised, unlikely to persuade opponents or neutrals, and is a personal attack and sanctionable. Similarly, this edit where you say: "The (Spanish) state prosecutor can't act against Wikipedia, but they can act against individual editors if the offence is committed on Spanish territory. So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory" is really unhelpful, verging on a legal threat. Your input in that area is important, but you can make your points without attacking or issuing veiled threats against other editors. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Content disputes"? I beg you pardon??? It is a direct threat of prosecution against me, even other more serious. It is not over contents, it is over irregular behaviour, and serial violation of WP rules destined at intimidating. I thought his contribs were telling enough. The above editor threatens with legal action against me should I revert his edits, see edits here and here (this last one telling "I got/know you", in Spanish). More on legal threats "by the state prosecutor" against editors ("although it can not act against wikipedia") should I act in a way or another here "make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory". Check the intimidating tone, using terminology that has legal implications here.

I posted an edit in Basque conflict talk, making it clear: I am not willing to discuss in the present conditions of continuous verbal abuse and threats. It is a clear case of an editor bulldozing its way by intimidation, citing my life outside the WP. The above editor, whom at this point I cannot consider legitimate given this episode and previous history, has gone on with its veiled threatening style against those who do not think like him here. S/he has thereafter continued editing the article having his own way. I demand prompt unequivocal action against the above editor, and its indefinite block from WP. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the same unacceptable, abusive line here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is ill advised, but it is not a direct threat of prosecution. You both need to cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you really read the links above? Did you? Let me tell you it looks like not sorry. It is a threat on my out-of-the-WP life as pointed by himself, based on we do not know what really, since the Asilah1981's statements do not point to specific problems that may be addressed, but an overall feeling of aggravation. The goal seems rather to spread a feeling of being unsafe to dissuade editors from editing legitimately in freedom ("if you undo my edits"). There is an unacceptable inflammatory, emotional accusatory plea that makes any discussion impossible, the goal pursued as it seems (it is basically a 'my way or highway'), and thus create biased articles. Other than me and other WP editors, WP's reliability is the main victim. I should urge an immediate call to the free flow of legitimate ideas into the WP, and therefore a block to the above editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the links above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have cooled down, I suggest you do the same. I have already stated in the edit you mention that I am NOT going to report you to the police in ANY case, so I am NOT threatening you. I am, however pointing to the fact that, if you engage in an edit war with me over an article with content which in Spain is clearly illegal (as well as deeply immoral), you are likely to be liable for "apology of terrorism". This is a serious risk for you outside wikipedia. I don't think you have committed a crime as of yet but you were definitely going down that road - Best warn you in advance! The risk you face is somewhat diminished by the depressingly low numbers of Spanish citizens who speak or understand English fluently but it is a risk nonetheless, particularly since your edits remain recorded into the future. The creator of article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners was fully aware of this and this is why he has deleted his account. Your edits in general are largely apolitical and constructive. Why get into trouble over such an ugly thing. I'm sure you know of what Madrid town Councillor Guillermo Zapata is going through right now. In 2016, one cannot continue to believe that the internet is a separate universe without real life consequences. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you have cooled down. However, you still are very confrontational and non-constructive. I suggest you stop interpreting Spanish law and leave that to the legal system. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture Understood. But I remind you that the least offensive of the two articles: Basque Conflict has already been discussed in the Spanish parliament with an official request by Spanish party UPyD to the government to formally complain to Wikipedia (Simply because of its title/definition)http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2013/12/04/upyd-wikipedia-eta_n_4384982.html. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has picked up on the worst of the two articles that I went ballistic over. This is not a question of my interpretation. The law is clear and the Spanish police has an entire team specialized in internet hate crimes and terrorism apology - a correct application of Wikipedia rules would bring such articles and their editors within the realm of legality as well as leading to another quality article which does not tarnish the reputation of wikipedia. Its a win-win situation. Up to you guys...Asilah1981 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's up to the Spanish legal system. What you are doing NOW is getting very close to making legal threats against Wikipedia, which is an automatic ban. Don't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Spanish state security laws and procedures overall are extremely controversial both in the Spanish and Basque political life. Secondly, I should demand Asilah1981 to retract now from unacceptable verbal abuse and personal attack against me, like here (literally if someone does not understand Spanish: "(...) you are coming here and lying in English, standing up for your coward shoot-in-the-head friends" in order to start re-establishing some kind of normality. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While the article should be written from as neutral a point of view as possible, the Spanish legal authorities have no jurisdiction over this American website, and what they think about the English-language Wikipedia is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood

Looks like we have at least three (3) different editors reverting each other back-and-forth within the last 24-hours.

I couldn't report it to WP:RFPP because it's an ongoing WP:AFD discussion.

Not sure what step is appropriate next, but probably some admin action is required here to stop the ongoing disruption of the currently open deletion debate.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No action required. Nobody has violated WP:3RR. sst✈ 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Page history shows swift succession of reverts and undoing each others' edits within a short spate of time -- certainly appears to be ongoing disruption of the page itself. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole discussion is a mess, including sections unrelated to the discussion of the notability of the article. Some votes and the relist template are placed incorrectly in these discussion sections, which may be confusing for editors wanting to vote in the discussion. You may review my edits to determine whether they are neutral and appropriate. Thanks. sst✈ 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll respectfully defer to previously uninvolved admins to review the recent disruptive history of the deletion debate page. — Cirt (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As much as I would like to intervene as it appears that I'm an uninvolved admin that has been watching the article, I have a COI here so I am intentionally avoiding the discussion (except for the metadiscussion comment that I added about why I hate the concept of relisting in general) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

People forget that you are not entitled to three reverts. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. SST has now significantly reordered other users' comments three times for no obvious reason. Guess we're gonna just let it happen? Townlake (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt it seems like your objection is to SSTflyer's reversions and reordering of content, is that your complaint? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:I've not taken a position on any of the particular edits, just noting a good deal of ongoing disruption and bringing it here for analysis by previously uninvolved admins. — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

for no obvious reason I think I have clearly explained my rationale for such reordering in my edit summaries. Some of the votes, and more importantly the relist note, are placed in the discussion sections. Placing them back in the discussion about the notability of the article ordered based on when these comments were made is beneficial. My edits are similar to comment rearrangements that have been done at RfAs. I am frankly surprised that this gets to ANI. sst✈ 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy god this whole thing is a waste of time. I really don't give a single fuck as to whether or not I have an article, but please, everyone, consider writing an article about a kickass lady or LGBT person or POC or something instead of wasting your time arguing about me. Please. Keilana (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd offer up to close the AfD and try to forestall additional bickering but I think Ymblanter makes the salient point that getting a group or triumvirate together to try and hammer out a good close would be ideal. Anyone else feeling like there isn't enough drama in their lives and want to chat about it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why bother wasting the time? Its a foregone conclusion no one is going to close it as delete regardless of the policy backed arguments. It will be no-consensus to delete and so it will be kept. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It does look like a no-consensus decision would be appropriate although I'm guessing that this would then result in a second deletion discussion within six months. Speaking generally, a no-consensus decision sometimes just acts as a "on hold" button for those editors who advocate deletion of an article.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see in six months. I agree it's time for this to end. No consensus is the clear result. Townlake (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the problems of AfD that I really should raise elsewhere at some stage. The burden for inclusion should lie with those who want to include, not those who do not. No consensus should = delete, not keep. Anything that is borderline is, by definition, at the extreme margins of what might be considered encyclopaedic. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the same argument could be made for the opposing side. If you can't get a solid delete vote then it should stay. Now, if the article included the winning word from the DuPage County Spelling Bee, that might make it a notable article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually sometimes for BLP's a no-consensus does result in a delete due to the wishes of the subject tipping the balance. So this would actually be an appropriate time for the subject to make those wishes known. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed,; but unfortunately the subject's own opinion doesn't really help us! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• And why is this at ANI? SSTflyer BOLDly did the major refactoring the debate [123], then I reverted [124], and SSTFlyer then just opted to (reasonably) move the misplaced stuff around [125], at which point he was knee-jerk reverted by Townlake [126]; SSTflyer reverted [127] explaining in the edit summary that it has to be uncontroversial (and it stuck). I disagreed with SSTflyer in the debate, but he didn't do anything particularly improper here. So please, let's not make ANIs out of molehills. No such user (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

He moved some stuff to make it look like Aus and I were having a longer convo than we actually were. An absolute no-no. So I object to your characterization of my revert as knee-jerk. Townlake (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem about not complying with WP:OPENPARA guideline

I am asking the intervention of an admin at the page Joseph-Louis Lagrange, since User:Sapphorain, against the WP:OPENPARA guideline, is inserting a double nationality in the lead of the article. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear about that:

"if (the person is) notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

In this specific case, Lagrange became notable when he was still in Turin, reached the apogee of his fame in Berlin, then went to Paris, where among others he became French citizen. Notability was reached in Italy, so only the Italian nationality should be mentioned in the opening paragraph (not elsewhere, of course).

One thing should be clear: the rule established at WP:OPENPARA is crucial to avoid edit wars (well, most of edit wars ;-)), and does not allow the mentioning of double nationality in the lead. A famous case was the article about Enrico Fermi, object of edit wars for years among Italian and American Nationalistic POV pushers, until a user invoked the rule. After that, the lead of Enrico Fermi reached its stability. Of course this rule does not go always to the advantage of Italians: in other cases (i.e. at Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Rogers, Andrew Viterbi) I had to remove (several times) the Italian nationality from the lead. The rule is not perfect, but if someone is not happy about it, he/she should open a thread on the related manual of style discussion page, instead of edit warring.

About Lagrange, the correct version (with the Italian nationality) until before yesterday had a remarkable stability, showing that in this case there is consensus (that is, the rule was well understood). The double nationality was introduced before yesterday by another user ([128]) and after my revert with edit summary invoking WP:OPENPARA, by Sapphorain ([129]) I reverted again to the stable version inviting User:Sapphorain on his talk page to open a thread on the discussion page of the manual of style ([130]), and offering my support in case he had proposed the introduction of the possibility of a double nationality in the lead. As answer, he reverted again, accusing me of dishonesty ([131]). After that, I think that the intervention of an admin is necessary,at least to explain to the aforementioned user how this guideline works. Alex2006 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) Sounds like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the subject is the refusal of complying with a guideline. None disputes that Lagrange some years before dying got the French nationality, but WP:OPENPARA compels to put only one nationality in the lead. WP:OPENPARA is a guideline, this means that it should be enforced, if necessary. Alex2006 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines never compel anything. If you read the guideline you'll see this is the case. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what does this mean?

"Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." This is exactly what is happening in this case: after having failed with the persuasion, explaining what the guideline says, now I am asking for an admin intervention. Alex2006 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation of WP:OPENPARA is incomplete. It reads: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." The interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange, and the best solution is to mention both nationalities in the lead. Alex2006 would be right if Lagrange were notable "mainly for past events" (past events that took place in Italy before he moved). But it is not the case. Although he became notable in Italy, he is not notable mainly, but also, because of what he did in Italy. Sapphorain (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "mainly for past events" has nothing to do with the fact that he moved or not abroad. The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period, and the case of Lagrange is not "very difficult" (why difficult?), but crystal clear: Lagrange became notable already in Italy (the King of Prussia named him in his invitation letter "the foremost mathematician in europe"), and his notability increased above all when he was in Berlin, and in that period he remained an Italian working in Berlin. In other words, the question is: if Lagrange would have died during his trip from Turin to Berlin, should still deserve his article on an Encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then he shall be defined as Italian. Moreover, the guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two (otherwise I would have no problem in describing him in the lead as Italo-French) and this should be the Italian. BTW, I arose the issue of the double nationality already a couple of times in the manual of style discussion page, but I have been plainly ignored by the many contributors, the main reason being possibly that people who brings this issue are usually nationalistic POV-pushers: Italians who want to define Richard Rogers as Italo-British, Americans who would like to describe Enrico Fermi as Italian-American, and so on. This means that there is a strong consensus regarding this guideline. As I wrote above, if Sapphorain does not agree with this guideline, he can open a thread on the discussion page of the Manual of Style, and I can help him, but he should refrain from edit warring and keep the last stable version in place until the general discussion about this guideline has not been settled. Alex2006 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"[...] until the general discussion [...] has not been settled." ← Say wha`??? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I must correct two assertions by Alex2006.

(1) "The guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two" is simply not true: nothing of the kind is mentioned in WP:OPENPARA.

(2) "The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period" is Alex2006's own private opinion, and is not contained in WP:OPENPARA.

… Oh, and by the way: I am not French (nor Italian, nor nationalistic POV-pusher, whatever that might possibly mean ). Sapphorain (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex2006: As was explained to you above, guidelines are not mandatory; they are as their name implies, guides to article style. Actual content of any given article are decided by consensus at the individual article. It is never a good idea to ascribe a motive to another's edits unless you are prepared to cite numerous diffs showing a pattern such as you are ascribing. This is unambiguously a content dispute. Content disputes get settled on article talk pages with the assistance of WP:DR if needed. This board is for editor behavior that is in violation of policy. There is nothing like that here. The only thing close is the near WP:NPA violation you have made by questioning Sapphorain's motives without evidence. Drop this, go back to the talk page and calmly work this out please. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if guidelines are not mandatory, although strangely there is a paragraph about guideline enforcement, there is absolutely nothing to discuss on the article's talk page or here. The (lengthy) discussion about the insertion in the lead of the double nationality in the case of Enrico Fermi, to be found here, especially the last edits by Yworo who ended the discussion:

"For the purposes of the lead sentence, we use the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable...Basically, most people will be described using their birth nationality, if they became notable before changing or adding a citizenship."

Means absolutely nothing. Each one can edit or revert as he/she wishes, and for each person we have to start again a three month long discussion. Good to know, thanks. For me Lagrange can stays as he is, Italian-French, French-Italian or plainly French. Bye.Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Sapphorain:, I was surprised to see you insist that Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician and astronomer, is not notable mainly for past events, and that Alessandro "dishonestly"[132] left out the complete sentence about what happens in modern-day cases. Do you think Lagrange is a modern-day case? Of course he's notable for past events — he's a past-events guy! I have placed a personal attack warning on your page; please don't disparage other editors and don't call anybody here "dishonest" again — especially not without cause.
• As for the authority of the Manual of style, of which WP:OPENPARA is part, both policies and guidelines describe community standards. People can override a guideline in a particular case if they have a good reason. But the reason Sapphorain gives for advocating mention of both nationalities in the lead, namely that "the interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange", isn't really a good reason. If Lagrange was a modern figure it would be difficult, yes. Since he's an Enlightenment figure it's pretty easy. Please don't insist, Sapphorain. If you think WP:OPENPARA should be changed to allow for double nationality in the lead in this case, I think Alessandro's advice to open a discussion at WT:MOS is good. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: The distortion or mutilation of a citation in order to make a point is dishonest. The observation that such a distortion was made is not an attack, it is just … an observation. I am calling a cat a cat, and there is no way I will not mention such a fact just in order to be nice. Now, the complete sentence in WP:OPENPARA reads "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You oppose me that does not apply to Lagrange because he is not modern enough. But how then can you accept the conclusion given (about the nationality in the lead), when it is justified by a portion of the very same sentence, from which the precision "in most modern-day cases" has simply been removed ?! Sapphorain (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AnemoneProjectors (an admin) severely owning pages!

Let's take Vincent Hubbard, for example. User:AnemoneProjectors doesn't want a year next to his wife in the infobox (despite the infobox template stating under "Spouses" in the parameter descriptions, "Durations are listed"). Her reasoning for it has changed over time...

1. I don't think we should put a year
2. Vincent didn't exist until 2015 (more on that later)
3. [133] (same excuse as above)
4. [134]
5. [135] (this sure is a lot of reverting...)
6. [136] (no reason this time, just because)
7. Now years "aren't necessary" - no reasoning behind that, they just aren't
8. [137] (found another one)

At that point, I started a discussion on the talk page (something she should have done long before given the amount of reverting she's done), where it was explained to her in detail that the character did exist prior to 2015, she just refused to believe it. She finished the conversation by stating she would "let this one go then." She didn't. Instead, she created her own phoney new rule to give herself her way and continued reverting.

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. Now with a claim of a consensus talk! (more on that later)
5. Now with a link to a page supposedly containing the consensus talk but... there's no talk on that page dealing with this!

All the while, consensus talks have been happening where she constantly pretends that previous conversations never happened in order to try and get her way (example: the character not existing until 2015 even though she knows he existed before that). They are here: 1, 2, 3. She has created other rules out of thin air in order to keep the page her way and continued to claim she is right because of "phantom" consensus talks she won't link to (even being shown where it says that she has to prove it or can't quote it). Even after all that, she still reverted again. She is owning, showing signs of "I don't have to", ignoring talks, creating phoney talks and refusing to show where they are... she is now also well past the 3RR on the Vincent Hubbard page for today. Are there different rules for admins or why is this allowed for her? Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm a he not a she but never mind, it's not that important. AnemoneProjectors 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given the wording at WP:3RR (A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.), I'm not sure there's a WP:3RR violation. clpo13_(talk) 22:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that could be. The 3RR being broken is not what I'm really bringing up here. It's everything else. But I do thank you for that correction.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

TBH, I thought it was a 3RR violation as well and was going to refer you to WP:AN3. Anyways, it's still a bunch of reverts so the potential WP:OWNership issues are worth looking into. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, yes. The phoney consensus talks and goose-chases to go find them... that's really bad. Especially from an admin. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus. It goes back a long time and I can't recall exactly where it is. But there is WP:WAF-INFO explaining what belongs in an infobox, so I haven't "created rules out of thin air". One of the links posted above is not my edit. Also I'm sorry but I did forget that I said I would "let this one go" as it was some months ago. However, Cebr1979 also agreed with me that the marriage dates should be removed from the infoboxes, but some time later when I later posted another reason, s/he just decided one of my reasons was "tired" and had changed his/her mind. But I'm not allowed to change my mind. AnemoneProjectors 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. If you can't link to it, it doesn't exist. Period. And you know that. (I've also removed the link to the edit that wasn't you - thank you for that correction).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

AP is correct. For the Eastenders characters we do not list every relative mentioned. Suggest you read WP:SOAPS. Also, I notice you have reported the same user for edit warring then withdrawn your complaint. It's coming across that you have something against them. Just a passing observation. 5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you're just not paying attention properly (aka: you saw I withdrew so you had to have seen my reasoning for it... but, this isnt the first time you've "not gotten something" that was easy to get - nor is it the first time you've claimed a consensus without showing where the talk happened... even though you know you have to do that). Try again, Albert?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are engaging in a heated dispute including edit warring and full-on angry mastodon behaviour, over a couple of dates applied to a trivium in an infobox on a fictional character in a soap opera? Go away, read WP:LAME until you understand it and don't come back until you have settled this like grown-ups, is my recommendation. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol - If that's what you think this about, then you need to "go away" and "don't come back" until you are a "grown-up." This is not a content dispute. This is a discussion about an admin owning a page, having an "I don't have to" attitude, and claiming consensus talks to get his way with no proof that said talks exist. Let me get this straight: You needed to be told that? Wow.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cebr1979 is claiming that I haven't provided proof of consensus, but s/he refused to read my reply, where I directed him/her to the relevant guidelines. This person is an active member of WP:SOAPS so is already aware of this section of the WikiProject page. This user is just being WP:POINTy and wasting all our times. AnemoneProjectors 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Now you're grasping at strings to try and get out of showing where these consensus talks happened. Show them and this all goes away. But you can't. Because they don't exist. If they did, you'd show them. As I've already pointed out above: when you say where a talk happened, it ends up not really being there. I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm proving it. You haven't provided proof of these consensus talks. P.S. I'm a he and you don't have to ping me every time you comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Cebr1979 I posted the link on this very page to consensus after you accused myself and others of bullying and meatpuppetry. 5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh... Albert... That link certainly does go to some consensus talks but... it doesn't go to any consensus talk that has to do with what we're discussing here. That was just another goose chase...Cebr1979 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was being polite and responding to your comment above which said I didn't do something when I did. I'm actually finding the way you're speaking to editors not very civil. Maybe just me though. 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the reason I brought that up is because back then, you were refusing to show the talk. It took a very long time before you did. My reason for bringing that up is because you claimed a consensus talk again today but, didn't show (and still haven't shown) where it is. Given that past exchange, you definitely know you need to do that. You know you shouldn't have claimed a consensus talk without linking to it and you just proved that you know that and you knew it then. As for "civil," I'm certainly frustrated with tactics being used by you and AP but, uncivil? No. Editors and admins just use that a lot rather than staying on point.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So... after a consensus was reached here at this very board about "Phantom" Consensus Talks not being allowed and that they must be linked to or they carry no weight and editors can just continue on, AnemoneProjectors is now claiming that means nothing, it's "a discussion, not a policy." A whole board of admins is wrong and only he is right and he "doesn't have to" do what the whole board of admins has previously agreed upon. Great admin, guys. I'm so glad you're all just ignoring this.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A few people agreeing with you and a few people disagreeing with you doesn't make a consensus. AnemoneProjectors 21:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides, I already linked you to three guidelines to show that my edits were justified, but you conveniently chose to ignore them. They are guidelines, already built by consensus, so I don't need to find discussions to prove there is a consensus for them. The fact they exist is proof of consensus. By your logic, if I revert someone because of WP:V, I would have to show them a discussion showing how WP:V was decided on. AnemoneProjectors 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you don't have to do this... you don't have to do that... you don't have to do anything so long as you always get your way. You shouldn't be an admin.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jasenovac concentration camp

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

---

An editor, one Crovata has taken it upon himself to delete sourced text from an extremely sensitive topic. I gave him a welcome message, pointed out reading material, and explained why his edit had been reverted (by me) and clearly explained BRD. This editor is clearly determined to edit war. He not only reverted back rather than discuss on the article talk page but he also deleted my messages on his talk page. He is entitled to do this, of course, but in this case I believe it shows very bad faith. His partisan leanings are evident in his username and I don't want to play footsie with him or push him into violating 3RR, for which I would likely be blamed. If @Joy or @GregorB reads this please discuss with Crovata before this gets very ugly (see [141], [142], [143]). Quis separabit? 02:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that after almost 5,000 edits and 3 years of experience you're explainging me basic principles of Wikipedia? You placed a useless comment and edit on my talk page. You must be kidding right? I started the discussion, and you restarted your own - totally ignoring my remark how that the reverted information is highly biased and from unreliable sources - which was already discussed years ago. After my second revert I was writing reply to your in the talk page, but you immediately reported an "incident", with no time to wait for my respond, a reaction which is incomprehensible and exaggerated.--Crovata (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how many edits you've made, where you've made them or how long you have been on Wikipedia. They are irrelevant to your removing sourced text and violating BRD. This is a very sensitive topic and any attempt at sanitizing or revisionism is unacceptable. Quis separabit? 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about if is sourced, yet that source and claims don't go along WP:RS and article lead, because as you say it's very sensitive topic and inclusion of unreliable information is not supported. If you misunderstood my intention, and relating it openly with "revisionism" and "partisan leanings", then know that I consider being personally attacked, and this discussion will change course.--Crovata (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Did you folks notice it is new material, only just added on March 13? Perhaps the addition should be seen as the B in BRD and the onus should be on those wanting to retain it to seek consensus? Either way, discussion on the talk page to seek consensus is what you need - I don't see need for admin action at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good catch: the content was introduced with this edit While it's possible that the right side of the diff in question has some salvageable bits, heavy POV is obvious, and removing it en masse is not unwarranted. That does not relieve one of duty to discuss, though. I agree that - at least for the time being - admin action is not needed. GregorB (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Metalworker14 continues to add unsourced content

Metalworker14 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced content. Sometimes it‘s information about membership of bands. The most recent was the addition of an alias for a musician: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Clark_%28musician%29&diff=711068787&oldid=708392106. I have repeatedly warned the editor, tagged membership sections of band articles. The editor does not seem to understand WP:V let alone WP:RS. I have asked and warned the editor multiple times. The editor does not engage in discussion or explain additions. Complicating matters is that he has begun to use podcasts (primary source interviews) that are difficult to verify without listening to the whole podcast. I believe a short block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You gave a final warning template a few days ago I see. Did you try reporting to WP:AIV? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have given at least three final warnings:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=706293028&oldid=706183037
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=708376925&oldid=708090815
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=710764701&oldid=710478705

and yes, I reported Metalworker14 to AIV. It received a question to which I responded. The request was then deleted as declined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Unusual group of new users

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

---

Browsing Special:ListUsers for business usernames, I found the following user names:

• Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Britney_Spears_Jonas_Brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The_Pretty_Reckless_Velvet_Revolver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meghan_Trainor_Ruben_Studdard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The names alone are not suspicious, but it is unusual that there's a recurring pattern of "(musician/band 1) (musician/band 2)."

Weighing good faith toward the new users more heavily than concern for the site, all of their edits appear to be test edits. Tipping the balance the other way, something's fishy here. I've been fasting for almost 20 hours, so I do not feel I can reliably make a judgement call on this at the moment.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The sole edit made by The Pretty Reckless Velvet Revolver was definitely designed to be disruptive. I find it difficult to believe that those four users were not actually the same person, possibly socks. I also note that on 22 December 2015, The Pretty Reckless Garbage also made an unproductive edit as the only edit on that account, but anything a CheckUser could find on that one would definitely be stale. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And now we have Foo_Fighters_Velvet_Revolver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yeah, I'm leaning towards blocking all the accounts since collectively their edits are equivalent to one blocked vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• All accounts listed blocked and tagged as socks of The Pretty Reckless Garbage. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• CU note There was also Overkill Airbourne. All the accounts I can see are now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

They could have chosen some decent bands, don't you think? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey now, let's not get carried away. RIP Scott Weiland!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

No More Mr Nice Guy: Grave disruption

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

---

With this edit, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted with one click a series of edits (BDS history). A grave form of disruption. He did not really explain why the edits were wrong, only declared that he might have deleted some ok edits. Deletion of good edits is the most obvious form of vandalism and disruption. In this case nine violations at once. This guy deserves a block. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

YOu made a bold edit, he reverted you, the next step is to discuyss it on the Talk page. See WP:BRD. There is nothing obvious here for admins at this stage. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Incivility at AfD/Davey2010

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

---

I'd like to report Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 's incivility at AfD. I tried to engage with them on their talk page to clear the issue up, but the incivility continued there.

I commented on an AfD (here: [1]), raising a concern I had about the editors who had been pinged, who seemed to me to be weighted toward those who might possibly have a rooting interest in the topic. I did not ivote, as I don't feel I understand the guidelines for musician notability well enough. I tried to make clear that I was not accusing anyone of intentionally canvassing but just wanted to see a more diverse group of editors with experience assessing notability of musicians. I do not have any objection to the closure itself, as again I haven't the expertise in that area and two editors who weren't pinged did show up and agree with the others. But the closure included namecalling of me by the closer, Davey2010, and I object to the closer of an AfD calling one of the participants names as he shuts the door on the discussion. I attempted to contact him through his talk page, where he again engaged in namecalling (here: [2]) even though I approached him with civility. I would have preferred to leave a comment on the AfD, but as I can't do that I guess I have no further place to go than here. I probably would have let it drop, but I saw that he has a previous ANI (incident #7 on archive 912, can't seem to figure out how to link that) for incivility and early closure at AfD, and a week after being warned for it was blocked for continuing the behavior. (This AfD was also closed early as SNOW KEEP; I'm not sure you can call it snow when only 6 editors have ivoted and three of them, including the article creator, were pinged to the discussion and agreed with the editor pinging them.) At any rate, to me it seems like a continuance of a pattern, so I figured it would be good to say something.

The reason I care is that this kind of behavior chases editors away from participating in these discussions. Not being able to disagree without being disagreeable is a real problem. Namecalling -- especially as you close a discussion, so that you're guaranteeing yourself the last word -- is just never acceptable. It's not like there was even heated discussion; he just showed up, called me a loon, and closed the AfD. And when I gave him a chance to reconsider the namecalling, he simply did it again. valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Davey probably shouldn't have called you a name, but weren't you were arguing that others opinions were invalid because you didn't approve of their user names? While I agree that incivility is rampant, this week I've had an editor call me a racial pejorative, a sexual organ, and told me to "get the fuck of my back" for defending myself against his personal attacks. Name-calling is not the best way to handle disagreements, and Davey should probably worked harder to address your edits rather than your person, but "loon" is very mild for what is now acceptable behavior around the encyclopedia. I've spent a lot of time at AfD and Davey2010 is definitely not a problem editor! We probably should do a lot of work to avoid the "hostile work environment" Wikipedia has become, but just look up this page. This is a molehill compared to the Rockies above! Jacona (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

JaconaFrere, no, I wasn't arguing that anyone's opinion was invalid because I didn't approve of their usernames. I was only commenting that the editor doing the pinging and the editors pinged to an AfD for a Christian band seemed to have in common that they were strongly identified with Christianity and/or Christian music, and that perhaps we should try to get more diverse opinions. But even if I had been arguing that, calling me names for it is unacceptable, especially by the editor closing the discussion as he closes it. And I am not arguing that this namecalling is a major incident; I am arguing that it is part of a pattern of behavior. valereee (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had a funny feeling my comment was gonna end with me here ....., As I said on my talkpage it seemed stupid to say "I'm a little concerned that everyone pinged to this article seem to be members of the Christian music project" .... all because they !voted keep!....., Anywho to keep the peace & all that I apologize Valereee for calling you a loon, I guess somethings are best left unsaid, Oh and I've struck the entire sentence on the AFD too. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010, I appreciate you striking it at the AfD, thank you for that. I appreciate the attempt at apology, though I can't say it sounds very sincere -- this apology reads to me as, "Sorry you were offended and didn't just let this go. If I'd realized you'd start an ANI I would have done things differently." If I were less experienced, I might not have known it was possible to check your history or that there was a place to report incivility; if I were less willing to engage I might just have gone quietly away thinking, "Well, I won't try to help out at AfD again." This is a systemic problem on WP, and it doesn't help the project when experienced editors behave this way. I feel you need to find a different way to interact with well-intentioned editors with whom you disagree. valereee (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be a wiser choice if you let this go, Many many editors don't apologize for their comments however I have apologized for the comment and have struck the comment in the AFD ... so there's nothing that needs to be done except us both to move on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jacona. Please take this message in the friendly way it is intended. Unfortunately, your post above only gives more slack to those editors who behave with incivility. You said Davey probably shouldn't have called you a name... - to my mind, there is no "probably" about it. You also said ...but "loon" is very mild for what is now acceptable behavior around the encyclopedia. It is a personal attack ("loon" = "lunatic") which is not acceptable behaviour and we should all remember that. WP:Civility is one of the 5 pillars of WP - these need to be upheld and those who do not adhere to them need to be challenged. Please take this as an observation - it is not intended as a criticism. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely 100% correct DrChrissy, thanks for the correction! This just seems so mild compared to many personal attacks editors are subjected to on a regular basis. I would love to see civility restored to Wikipedia! If only issues like this one were on the edge, rather than at the core... Jacona (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree it is "relatively" mild compared to what both you and I have received, but it represents the thin edge of the wedge in terms of the "hostile work environment" you mention above. I wish you more peaceful editing in the future. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User:TheLongTone is stalking my contributions

User:TheLongTone seems to have reacted to my pushback against his hasty nomination for deletion of Disappearance of Sheila Fox by stalking my edits, looking for things he can have deleted. User:‎AldezD has stalked my edits in the past. Nothing was done then but i want something to be done now with TheLongTone. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm stalking you? You've repeatedly reached out to me on my talk page asking for help, with one of the requests occurring within the last 30 days ([144], [145], [146], [147]). You've also undone my edits in an AFD notifying a closing admin of your WP:CANVAS activity ([148]), and your edit summary in that reversion was "don't irritate me". I've undone one of your edits within the past year ([149]) removing unsourced information you included in your edit. WP:BOOMERANG for false accusations? AldezD (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of your edits related to me can only have happened because you were checking my user contribs. This has been noted by non-involved admins. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You compliment me in your edits to my talk page and also ask me for help...but now I'm stalking your edits? Proof? AldezD (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do think you do good work with Judith Barsi, i just think you shouldn't have been checking my user contribs. As i was told by another user here some years ago "that amounts to stalking and i would like you to stop". We can work together, have a good Wiki-relationship and be friends. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, proof? You make a serious accusation in an ANI about me and I refute it with proof showing your behavior (including very recent behavior)—in which you ask me for help—is contradictory. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Paul Benjamin Austin: Accusations like this require evidence to support them. Please provide diffs of how/when/where AldezD allegedly stalked you. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't this an accusation of stalking by User:TheLongTone? I used the editor interaction tool and found more interaction between Paul Benjamin Austin and myself, than between Paul Benjamin Austin and User:TheLongTone. (I don't recall ever hearing of Paul Benjamin Austin before today). I don't see any basis for the accusation. Jacona (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which begs the question, why did Paul Benjamin Austin call me out in this ANI in the first place? I don't appreciate being accused of stalking when the user has personally reached out to me for help multiple times (even within the past 30 days) and has yet to respond with proof of his accusation that I have been stalking his edits "in the past". If there's no basis for his accusation against me and against TheLongTone, shouldn't there be some level of disciplinary action for making a false accusation? AldezD (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

YCplaer/Orzijunmyeon persistant disruptive behavior possible sock puppetry and vandalism

For the page of Z.Tao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Ycplaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received warning regarding the spamming the article and addition of irrelevant information that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and reverting of page without any discussion or explanation in the edit summary and overall disruptive behavior by Admin Drmies.A 3RR report was filed and this editor was warned by Admin Edjohnston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ycplaer

Due to those edits. [150]She was warned by Drmies [151]She was warned and blocked by Edjohnston

Those edits were reverted and opposed those changes both in user's talk page and on the article's talk page or edit summary. By me. See talk for more detailed information. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Z.Tao&action=history Open discussion, the game changer, Tao martial artist and bold edit.

However despite discussion being open in the talk page, and admins warnings.

This editor came back again under a different name Orzijunmyeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in order to avoid sanction and resumed the page blanking and the spamming.The page blanking is even more obvious now because I added citations since last edit from YCplaer.[152]I had noticed it before but it was minimal and wanted to assume good faith but now after all the edits I made that this user deleted, it's more apparent, I now suspect that person is a sneaky vandal.

Sentences and properly sourced paragraphs have been deleted without any explanation or discussion from the Edit Summary, wrong information input in the subject's biography like Martial arts tricking performer despite it being wrong and contested in the talk page, link spams that have been reverted from administrator Drmies and myself like fancams replacing news sources citations, links to itunes or chinese music streaming services that require registration in citations instead the the news articles that were there before, copyrighted material. etc...All of these were addressed and opposed in the subject's talk page and edit summary, but these users didn't communicate at all before making those changes.

I believe Orzijunmyeon is a sock puppet because 1. New account 2. Same disruptive behavior, page blanking , spamming and lack of communication or justification for changes. 3.the article was reverted to Ycplaer's last edit. That's very specific and odd for a new editor to do that.

There is no logical justification for why someone who is genuinely interested in improving the page would behave that way. Especially seeing the talk page or the edit summary and being warned repeatedly.

I tried to report on thee intervention against vandalism page for Orzyjunmyeon and got declined, because it's hard to point out the vandalism unless you know the context and go through the whole article and talk page because that person is being sneaky, (but the martial arts tricking performer edit is a big red flag it's odd, he's equally notorious as being a Wushu martial artist as a musician, it looks to me like it's a purposefully misleading edit) and without knowing that Ycplaer/Orzijunmyeon may be a sockpuppet, it's hard to judge, I think I should have added that I sent an investigation for sock puppetry report.

The motives I can think of : The subject used to be part of a very popular Kpop boyband Exo. His departure and subsequent success some Exo fans bitter and/or since he's a young popular star who's gaining a lot of recognition, he attracts attention from some people that are immature.

I think these 2 users need to be blocked indefinitely and the page should be locked to avoid future vandalism under I.P addresses or creation another account that is not verified continuing to disrupt and/or Vandalize the page. TaoWoAini (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPI created is here. As the alleged master was not notified of this discussion, I have done so myself. GAB^Hello! 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you defend yourself from false claims if...

How is a person supposed to defend themselves from any false claims, such as at SPI, for example (like maybe if some admins are forgetting that SP rules say you CAN have multiple accounts if you don't abuse them such as by trying to look like you're a consensus when you're really not) if you block that person before he or she even had a chance to defend themselves and you don't even allow them to write defenses there because they're blocked?

What if you indeficately blocked someone that hasn't had a chance to show you on the SPI page why her or his blocking was wrong, yet you didn't realize why because you wouldn't let him or her show you why?

Why isn't there a policy that not only allows them to write defenses on their own talk page while blocked, but also allows them to write in a few other places while blocked, such as at the SPI and here? How about we work on fixing that problem so that your site doesn't cause so many artificial catch-22s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.252.15 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Answer You use WP:UTRS HERE. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you still have talk page access, you can use {{unblock}}, which is faster than waiting for UTRS. If you were blocked and had talk page access revoked, you should use UTRS. You should read WP:GAB before you make an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The user is a block-evading IP of indefinitely blocked user IDriveAStickShift (talk · contribs). See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift for more details. --MuZemike 22:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• As noted, the correct method for requesting unblock for an account or IP address is noted at WP:UTRS. The OP has been blocked for evading their original block. Greater than 100% of every blocked IP address and username will claim that their initial block is unjust. Asserting such a claim is not a license to then ignore the block. If it were unjust, UTRS will overturn it. --Jayron32 00:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Five

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, with IPv6 addresses: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*

See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3, 4). SLBedit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you filed an SPI, SLBedit? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit - You need to file one. Go here to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[168] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[169] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

I'm trying to stay calm about this article but I'm honestly struggling. Personally, I am a Sanders supporter myself, but this article is in no way relevant. Reading the AfD and merge proposal makes it exceedingly obvious what's going on: Sanders supporters are simply far more active online and are using this numerical advantage to create pro-Sanders articles. It is indefensible that this article exists. Wikipedia is not a political forum - period. I don't know how this will get resolved but it cannot be through "consensus." Consensus will never be achieved with this bunch. We need top down leadership, now more than ever. It's a slippery slope if you let this kind of stuff stand. Eightball (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it any worse than the "santorum" nonsense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. A literally unknown Facebook group is not as relevant as a term that became somewhat mainstream, not that either are necessarily worthy of Wiki articles. Campaign for "santorum" neologism at least has an OK argument. This Sanders page is objectively not important. It has no business being here. This is INSANE. Eightball (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an article for Sanders' support on the internet, and the Facebook page could be a small part of it? Maybe that would be amenable to these people. I have no idea. I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of being a paid Clinton shill any second now. Eightball (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: trying to edit war a bad CSD tag onto an article that has been through an AfD is not helping. Attacking editors that remove your clearly improper CSD tags and PROD nominations is not helping. The article has been around for a month now; there is no minute-by-minute rush on this. Chill. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I said above that I'm trying and failing to stay calm. It is simply insane that there has been such a complete and utter failure here that we've allowed Wikipedia to effectively be a part of the Sanders campaign. Does this not bother you?

The santorum thing was never "mainstream". But the question about this Sanders website should be whether independent reliable sources have discussed this website at any length. (And if it's supposed to help his campaign, it ain't working.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Right off the bat I see that the article includes this reference, which is enough depth of coverage to establish WP:GNG for most topics. How did you determine that this did not represent significant coverage of the Facebook group? VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, ONE article? That's not SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE. I guarantee if you tried to create a Wiki page for every Facebook group ever mentioned in a news story, 99% of them would be deleted in a matter of minutes. This one ONLY exists because of the overwhelming presence of Bernie supporters here. Really, there are two choices: delete this page, or tacitly admit that Wikipedia is a tool for the Sanders campaign. Eightball (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ref I linked was not a "mention"; it was a full-length article in WaPo written about the subject. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also a Vice article specifically about the Facebook group. That's two articles, and the standard for GNG is usually summed up as 'at least two RSs specifically about the subject.' (Otherwise we need to purge a lot of stubs on topics that are noteworthy but obscure). I admit that I'm a Sanders supporter, but I'm also shaking my head that any Facebook group has managed to become notable (I'd rather there be more of a focus on issues than on presentation). But there's still two reliable sources specifically about the subject, and several others that at least discuss it. This article offers the group as the primary example of its subject. I would have to admit that this qualifies as notable if it was an article on Trump or Cruz memes, and I'm not moving back to the US if either of them gets elected. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask what kind of "tool" the santorum article was supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and again, you can find an article or two about literally anything. And if you tried to write a wiki page about those topics, they would justifiably be deleted. This article only exists because of the overwhelming presence of Sanders supporters here. That is the only reason. It is an embarrassment. And to not delete it, again, simply proves that Wikipedia is a biased source. Eightball (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the Santorum article. The fact that it exists is of no relevance here. If you don't think it's notable, start your own discussion. It's obvious what side you're on... 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

To give you an idea which "side" I'm on, I'll tell you that my own nickname for the politician is "Sanctimonious". And that is not a compliment. But the article is a BLP violation and should never have been allowed to stay. Does it have any Washington Post articles about it? If not, then the Sanders website, as silly as it is, is already a step closer to notability than the santorum thing is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, speaking as an uninvolved editor in all this, let's stop with the personal attacks and unfounded accusations. It really accomplishes nothing and only aggravates the situation further. GAB^Hello! 01:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What personal attacks? This is a clearly biased article that is clearly written to benefit a single candidate. The fact that no one else is upset about this is shocking. It undermines the entire existence of Wikipedia. This website has no purpose if it can be abused to this extent. Eightball (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Facebook group itself is the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, and extensive sources. If source material exists with which to write an article, there's little reason to object to said article. That one wishes people outside of Wikipedia hadn't written those extensive sources is largely irrelevant. The sources exist, are adequately extensive and reliable, and are cited in the article. The article has no reason to be removed or deleted. --Jayron32 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. This ain't up for debate. This is a heavily Sanders-biased, unnecessary article, and to leave it simply concedes that this is a propaganda outlet. Eightball (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What makes something "ain't up for debate". From the tone of your posts in this discussion, it appears "ain't up for debate" is a direct synonym for "things I believe". That's not a way to convince others to agree with you, and thus is unlikely to generate consensus. Notice how much consensus you've developed so far by your intransigence and refusal to consider the possible validity of the contributions of others, and then see if the tactics you are using are likely to lead to the results you want... --Jayron32 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly it IS up for debate. The santorum thing is likewise a biased, unnecessary article, and is likewise propaganda. The difference is that it's a BLP violation, while the Sanders thing does not appear to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I donated to Sanders, but unless this is covered by secondary sources, tank it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You can find an article or two about literally anything... You literally cannot. But even if you could, that would be an issue to bring up on WP:GNG to pursue changing the guideline. Can you explain how your concern is different from the argument outlined at WP:IDL? What administrative action do you hope to have performed as a result of this thread? VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You quite literally can, actually. THREE articles that discuss this Facebook group in the context of Sanders' internet presence. That's it. NOT NOTABLE. Not by any stretch of the imagination. What do I want? Duh, I want the article deleted. That's the only acceptable outcome short of the President of Wikipedia showing up and saying "yeah actually Bernie bought Wiki." Eightball (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the largest mention this group deserves is one sentence in a subsection of the Bernie Sanders page describing his internet presence. Eightball (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong on ANI... content dispute at best. You're unhappy about the outcome of the AFD, but that doesn't warrant administrator intervention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need an ANI about the page? Im a sanders fan myself and I support removal or merge of the article but this is not really a place for it, although I do favor having an admin deleting the page. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs at AFD, of all places. GAB^Hello! 03:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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 [170] 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 [171]. 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". [172]

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". [173] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [174], 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. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [175], 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)

(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)

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)