Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post here lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Identical behaviour to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder... JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a blocked editor: [13] and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of the past and current IPs are geolocated in the same area. Undoubtedly the same editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about the block-evasion factor? [14] ? Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per WP:BE: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast with "Proposed uncontraversial deletion". Evaluate each page and consider if it's worth the mental investment to shepherd it through a AFD nomination. I do not see a ban proposal with respect to the IP range so it's my understanding that we have to treat these as AGF and can't apply the RBI stick to it. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have to treat this as AGF there is evidence of a block evasion. The block evasion is what this is looking at now, if it does turn out to be block evasion then the de-prodding can be considered disruptive and reverted. This will also allow us to nip this in the bud if it happens again in the future. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It/they are obviously WP:NOTHERE, are obviously block evading, and are playing a game of silly buggers with us, as Floquenbeam would say. Time to stop the nonsense and disruption per WP:BE and WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE, not to mention multiple accounts. Softlavender (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: @Mcmatter: It would be great, but the problem is that because this is an IP address and therefore isn't officially agreed to ToS, we have to follow the rules with respect to prods If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. There is a reasonable belief that there's an objection to deletion (even if it's they don't want anything deleted) therefore we are bound to follow policy. Don't like it? Round up a consensus to change the policy. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: by that logic all IPs should be unblocked now and given free run of the place because they have not accepted the ToS, but this is not the case, if you look at the text just above the save button it states By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. which means they have agreed to the terms of use and cannot claim freeman rights as you claim. Once again you are missing the major issue of the of block evasion, I have no issues with the PROD issue if the user is not evading a block.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have to prove that the editor is block evading. Without proof, there is nothing here that is actionable. —Farix (t | c) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: this is why I have brought it here as stated in my initial post. This post was never about discussing the PROD policy or system but the actions of a user which seems to be counter intuitive to the project community. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are asking others to go on a fishing expedition based on unsubstantiated claims of block evasion? —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" ([15], [16], [17] as this user; [18], [19], [20] as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Massively removing PRODs for no reason has petered out, that would be the place to discuss making a change to the prod policy. Vrac (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: It's not the prod policy we're talking about, it's disruptive editing. The IPs are a block evader who is simply rampaging through the list of prods and mass deleting all the tags. This is WP:DE and WP:BE no matter how you look at it. IPs that are block evaders must be blocked per WP:BE. IPs that are intentionally mass disruptive must be blocked per WP:DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Where is the blocked account? Before you can claim that someone is block evading, you have to identify the blocked account. 2) Removing proddes, even en-mass, is not disruptive editing. These articles can easily be sent to AfD using the exact same rational as the prod. It is also far less disruptive to Wikipedia to start an AfD than to argue over the "legitimacy" of a deprod. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Relatedly, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 is also de-PRODing multiple articles.- MrX 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  I had been trying to fight what was obvious vandalism (to me) by this behavior, but if no Admin sees it that way, and it's not considered disruptive, what's a regular editor to do? We have policies and guidelines, and this has been debated multiple times. The PROD process is clearly broken. It IS disruptive, if you force the "obvious" deletions to go through AfD - it takes additional editor time to wade through an AfD. Go ahead, let IP's and sockpuppets steal what actual editing time committed editors have to contribute by forcing it through the AfD process. This is a loophole that any actually allows wholesale vandalism to the project just because we can't add a few words to the PROD process. Say, MUST give a valid reason, or only registered editors can PROD. We limit deletion powers to Admins; why not limit PROD removals to registered editors? Or even Admins? Or Autoreviewers? Or Pending Changes Reviewers? We have some processes that require demonstration of commitment to this project to perform an action. Put deleting PRODs on that list. For that matter, put deleting maintenance tags on that list. Scr★pIron^IV 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Starting an AfD is not going to "waste" other editors times. Constantly arguing over the legitimacy of prod removals "wastes" far more time than starting an AfD and is much more disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Fourteen dePRODs by this IP hopping "editor" in less than 15 minutes today (four in the span of on minute! Clearly, in depth analysis is going on) each will involve at least 5 editors, often more, to evaluate and contribute. That is a very fine act of vandalism if I do say so. Where one Admin could evaluate the PROD, now we multiply that by the participants in AfD and add the Admin back in again to close it. Starting "an" AfD is not the issue - forcing a dozen or more without any evaluation IS the issue. Multiply the editing hours for all of them vs. a single ANI/AIV report - the math is clear. This is actually quite clever trolling, with a flawed policy behind it to support it, so nothing can or will be done. And for those who would choose policy over common sense, then I suggest a change to policy or an implementation of the WP:IAR policy to prevent continued damage to the project. Or have we abandondoned WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Scr★pIron^IV 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  Drop the stick already because nothing is going to happen. Removing prods is specifically not vandalism and is allowed under the deletion policy. If you truly believe that an article should still be deleted, send it to AfD as the next step. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardblocking 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny to do it...I don't need to know which one to see illegitimate behavior. If you see him anymore then you can revert him because he will be evading a block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. Vrac (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an extremely bad block. The editor was acting well within the deletion policy and could dispute whatever and as many prods as he/she chooses. If you want to limit the number of proddes an editor can dispute, either change the policy or take it to WP:ArbCom. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is your right doesn't make it right. De-Prodding just because you can when it is clearly disruptive and generating excessive arguments on multiple admin noticeboards makes the de facto argument that it is disruptive editing...but I don't mind my block being reviewed here. We are not an endless pit of labor to be wasted just because someone has an argument. I believe that this editor is avoiding scrutiny. I believe that Wikipedia and its editors fare better with this editor blocked so that they quit being a time sink for those involved. That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy. That editor didn't improve a single article did they? I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block- Mass dePRODS are always just pointy attempts to wreck a useful maintenance mechanism for everyone. Staying technically within the wording of policy while deliberately subverting its intent is called gaming the system and should be prevented. It's also likely that this is some returning banned user or other. Reyk _YO! 10:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block "That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy." Precisely. I'm unsure how anyone sees it otherwise. Policy "allows" us to do many things which we should not do. "I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others." I'm glad you don't, and I'm glad you acted. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - disruptive behavior, clearly. GiantSnowman 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The deprodding was obviously a form of disruption. I agree with the points made by ScrapIronIV and Berean Hunter.- MrX 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Seems pretty obvious their intention was trolling and disruption. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Thank you for taking this seriously. Scr★pIron^IV 14:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The edits were disruptive and were specifically made in order to undermine the deletion process, creating unnecessary work for reviewers and admins.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - yes, enough with this dePRODing drama with people who are too into WP:BURO to see that disruption is disruption just because the policy doesn't specifically state that mass-deprodding is not one of the "exceptions". LjL (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. Simply because a single action is allowed does not mean that a repeated pattern of such actions can't be disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - First, I agree it was a good block, but I have a question. I came across this editor's actions through an article I had prodded, which they contested. Another editor AfD'd it. I then came across another article where they had contested another editor's prod (I think it was one of Wolfowitz'). After researching, I sent that article to AfD, since it clearly did not meet notability guidelines. After that, I discovered the ip editor had been blocked, and took a look at their edit history. I began to look at each of the article's they had de-prodded. If research showed they did not meet notability criteria, I submitted it to AfD. Sometimes this had already been done by another editor, and if I had an opinion based on guidelines, I !voted at the AfD. However, sometimes the removal of the prod was, in fact, useful. Perfect example was Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a secondary school, so all that is needed is proof of existence (while I may not agree with the guideline, if it is consensus I've agreed to follow it). That particular article had had the prod tag re-inserted. I removed it, as per the WP:PROD policy stated above where if a prod tag is removed, even in bad faith, it cannot be re-added. Then I went to check Casper Radza, where again, the prod had been re-asserted. However, this time the editor had referenced this discussion (hence my presence here). Sorry about my bloviating, but I felt it necessary to show the trail of thought which led there. So, is there an exception to the Prod rule? If so, I should go self-revert a couple of the other prod re-assertions I did. Thanks for any light you can throw my way. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:onel5969, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states " This section is not a notability guideline. WP:GNG and WP:ORG are." It's a section of WP:OUTCOMES which is an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block and I also second Doug Weller's comment. Schools are not inherently notable simply for existing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Doug Weller - and I know that, I used the wrong term (mainly I was trying to wrap up my overlong comment). My point is, that if you AfD an article like that you have 100% chance that it will fail, where there are several editors who quote that essay as being consensus on the topic. No point in wasting editors' time in nominating an article for AfD if it has zero chance of being deleted. And as I said, I disagree with the essence of the essay, was simply attempting to explain why I didn't AfD the article. However, I'm simply trying to learn that if there is ever an exception to the prod rule about not re-applying it? Right now, the guideline seems pretty clear that there isn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it makes sense to not restore the prod on a particular article based on the merits of that article, then by all means don't restore it. The modification to the WP:PROD rule is just to prevent a loophole that allows indiscriminate mass de-prods. If a user de-prods 100 hundred articles they are likely to be correct on a couple of them, but correct by luck not design. Vrac (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• GOOD BLOCK - he's busted He was most certainly deprodding at random or based on his dislike of who placed the block. He deprodded an article on a Russian company (Krasnoleninsky Refinery) that DOES NOT EXIST because it is a scam. Not only are there no references to the company in Russian (the name as it's spelled on its logo "красноленинский+очистительный" brings up a whopping ZERO hits), searching for the name in English -wiki brings up only info about it being a scam! He couldn't have even accused the prodder of COI - the article had only about a dozen edits from the creator (SPA with no other article creations) and a few bots/non-content fixes, and had been largely untouched since it was created in January. It was not possible in any way for there to be any valid reason for deprod. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• GOOD BLOCK. What would the process be to change the prod rules so that a deprod by a blocked user can be reversed/ Op47 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Something occurred to me the other day when I made this block but since it is my theory (and to a lesser degree because of BEANS) I chose to leave this off but it is perhaps best to lay this out there. There is a good chance that all of this was done as a bit of a smokescreen. I believe that it is quite likely that pet articles of socks had been prodded but rather than simply deprod those and potentially get themselves identified, they created a flurry of deprods to hide behind. I tracked back to different sock cases but it isn't fully clear. I suspect that the articles which prompted this are those of Filipino radio stations.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support block BMK (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Right. So let me get this clear. Someone has been blocked for legitimately removing deletion tags while simultaneously Neelix is let off scot-free? "If this is justice, I'm a banana" AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @AusLondonder: I know that you believe that Neelix should have been blocked -- I do too -- but not every instance of an editor being blocked is directly comparable to the Neelix situation. It's really not terribly effective to keep on in this way, as it's not going to undo the close of the AN/I regarding Neelix and it's clearly not going to influence ArbCom (which seems to be set on what it is going to do). All it's really going to do is get people annoyed - not at Neelix, or ArbCom, but at you'. My advice would be not to drop the issue, necessarily, but to make sure that when you bring it up, it's in an appropriate place at an appropriate time. For instance, the block below for the editor who created inappropriate redirects might have been an object lesson in how a non-admin is handled differently from an admin, were it not for the fact that the editor who made the redirects was being obviously pointy, while Neelix, as far as we know (because he has yet to explain himself) seemed to think that his redirects were in some way helpful. BMK (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - mass dePROD not allowed User:AusLondonder when you say legitimately, there are exceptions for being allowed to dePROD. mass PROD and mass dePROD was discussed, and mass dePROD made explicitly not allowed. [21]. There was concern of WP:CREEP but that was outweighed by the scale of WP:DISRUPTion. Mass dePROD is not allowed, mass PROD was not explicitly excluded (they can be dePRODDed by anyone). (This is a logical inversion of normal things, due to the nature of PROD.) Widefox; talk 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block for PROD WP:POINT disruption IAR - the only question I have is why the disruption lasted so long? If an admin felt they could have stepped in earlier then possibly we wouldn't feel the need to patch dePROD, but due to the expense of human reviewing the mass dePRODs and difficulty of, essentially, statistical analysis to ascertain a real objection to deletion (rather than an objection to PROD), I'm still on the side of disallowing it (with the caveat of that wording or better). Widefox; talk 11:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Appropiate/good block - The IP massively dePRODded articles without giving appropiate reasons other than citing WP:CONTESTED which is not appliable because that's not related to the articles being PRODded, but rather the PROD itself. DePRODding without a summary is not forbidden normally, but the fact that the dePRODds without summaries were massive, it gives the appearance of being WP:POINTy. --TL22 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I think this should be closed per WP:SNOW. --TL22 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure if here or WP:AN is the best place for this, but since I want as many editors (not just administrators) to weigh in on it, I've brought it here. User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) has left three messages on my talk page, which concern his using Wikipedia to publicize his material, socking, how he can't be deterred, and his war against the anti-child sexual abuse crowd. See User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary for more detail. So I of course was disappointed and frustrated to see that Sadads restored two of his articles -- List of tools used in sex offender forensic psychological evaluations‎ and Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk, stating in the logs, "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." and "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." See this discussion for further detail. I told Sadads, in part, "I recognize in other ways that a WP:Notable topic should perhaps not be deleted. But as Alison, JamesBWatson, NeilN and others can tell you, we are dealing with a very serious sock/banned editor in this case, one who loves to publicize his work on Wikipedia, usually for shameful ulterior motives, and has openly declared a war against Wikipedia editors. [...] And I don't see why it should at all be encouraged. [...] I don't see that these articles or any other articles this editor creates are quality content; this editor's articles are usually based on one or two sources, are often non-notable, WP:POV forks, and/or don't comply with WP:MEDRS. If a topic is WP:Notable, we should leave it up to good editors to create, not editors like this one. I stated on my talk page, in part. "His latest post on my talk page was titled 'I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated'; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well." The third article is Kurt Bumby. I think all the other articles were deleted; I'll check again at some point.

So my questions are this: Should we, under any circumstance, accept an article by this editor, especially given the aforementioned statements he posted on my talk page? For example, when the article is deleted under WP:G5, should it be restored because it's WP:Notable or perceived as WP:Notable by the administrator? Below are options and a discussion section for this matter, to help gauge different views. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to this discussion.

Delete any new article by this editor, WP:G5-type or otherwise

• Support, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Anyone restoring needs (a) to take full responsibility for the article and (b) to explain why proxying for a banned editor is a good idea. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per JohnCD. Banned users are not welcome to contribute to this project in any capacity, no matter what quality. If admins don't intend to enforce this ban, then stop pretending that it means anything and lift it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support There's no point having a policy if it's going to be ignored. Op47 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete only under certain circumstances

• Comment: The article would have to be pretty spectacular, and/or significantly expanded by a different editor for me to be okay with keeping it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The prior discussion involved a GA that people thought could become a FA, as an example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete non-WP:G5-compliant articles by this editor

Take the discussion elsewhere

• Delete them and take them to WP:DRV for separate discussions there. See below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with this but the question remains about what to do in the situation where an admin undeletes a G5 article unilaterally. My feeling is that the admin now takes responsibility for the content and any deficiencies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Same situation, different CSD criteria, what's done? If an admin uniltarally undeletes a page speedied deleted under other criteria, say A7, I think that's a fair IAR and wheel warring dispute to bring back to ANI but wouldn't the article be re-deleted and then taken to DRV? I think we need to look at this on an article by article basis rather than a remedy on the editor basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

When the last G5 issue came up, I stated that I did not believe that ANI is the proper location for these G5 arguments (whether or not it was an appropriate IAR to restore G5 articles). Same here again. G5 falls under the other CSD criteria and we have a system for discussing restoration following a CSD-based deletion, namely WP:Deletion review. This is the wrong venue and we need to come up with a more systematic way of handling these than just ANI arguments. It's too complicated for here. There is no reason why people should be using ANI discussions to formulate a consensus around G5 discussions when we have a much better place that already deals with restorations following A7, A1, and many other CSD deletions (including I believe wholesale deletions for copyright violations). It would also be a better place for someone to bring a new draft if they want to argue for restoration based on not using the G5 problem editor's work, much better than arguing it here at ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you. I understand what you mean, even though I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion be a good start? There is already Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Why_use_G5_for_useful_pictures.3F about images with G5. The issue is whether we want to change the wording for G5 (then WPT:CSD works) or just IAR to get around the literal meaning of G5 (at which point there's no real discussion place other than ANI for whether the IAR is appropriate). Let's see if anyone else cares about my point as no one seemed to last time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I was waiting to see what others had to state about all of this. Not much, it seems. So far anyway. Given that I alerted that talk page and the WP:Sockpuppet talk page to this discussion, and there has yet to be substantial commentary from those two pages on this issue, and since WP:ANI has many more eyes than those talk pages, I don't see how taking the discussion directly to the criteria for speedy deletion talk page would help. Also, for this discussion, my main focus is on this editor; there is not quite another like him. While there are editors who do not mind if content comes from a WP:Sock, especially if the content improves Wikipedia, I think they should mind when the content comes from an editor like this one. His WP:ArbCom ban is serious, and I can't go into all the details here, but I will state that I can't support a person like this (unless he reverted vandalism, or removed some other very problematic edit). He is not so much concerned with Wikipedia, as he is concerned with his own ego and promoting himself and his views. And, as far as I'm concerned, his poor articles are not an improvement, especially when they are WP:POV forks. That stated, I very much understand what you mean about issues like this needing a broader focus, especially so that we can perhaps get some changes made to our guidelines and/or policies on these matters.

Davidwr, regarding this, I appreciated the comment. Do you mind explaining why you removed it? I take it that you are reevaluating this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Davidwr responded to me via email, and I asked him before noting this here (if he was okay with me doing so). Also note that Tisane has replied again on my talk page. I've added it to User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary. It's the fourth reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have written an essay elsewhere about the counterproductive effects of deleting some good content by some banned users, where the work is unrelated to the reasons for the ban, and I can see both sides of that argument in some situations. But this individual is globally banned by the WMF Office, and from what I have seen, that is for very serious reasons. His current posts need to be brought to the attention of the Legal Department, which I will do, and people need to stop re-posting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I know that I thanked you via WP:Echo days ago for your post, but thanks again. The more editors who care about this matter instead of ignoring it (I don't understand how they can validly ignore it, other than being uncomfortable with matters relating to the topic of child sexual abuse), the more I appreciate Wikipedia. And, believe me, that appreciation is seriously low these days. One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster reminded me via email that he is WP:WMF-banned in addition to being WP:ArbCom-banned. I was going to note that here before I saw your post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, I don't mean Davidwr by "One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster"; I'm speaking of someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore (not usually anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, I agree with the premise of your essay but as long as we continue with the "the only rationale to undelete is IAR", we'll never formulate a proper policy and actually change G5 to reflect what should be done. IAR just gives us an out so we have a strict G5 in writing but not in reality. Here, we are now debating this but what will the result be? Will an admin who closes this restore the content? If it's not restored, is that proper? Can another admin restore it if they want? Again, it shouldn't be IAR and a wholesale individual admin by admin approach but a policy that the content is deleted per G5 unilaterally and a mechanism for individual pages to be restored. The problem is the repeated conflating of the editor versus the pages and the content which is how this should be evaluated. Basically I'd treat it like an old copyright violation: if it can be recreated and restored, let's do so but if the content can't or it isn't valuable enough to bother, let's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: et al.: Users who are banned by WMF office action are a special situation in which any flexibility that the community might otherwise decide to show in these situations is much less applicable. Thus, I don't think this is a good situation from which to try to extrapolate a general policy. Beyond that, there are a lot of other factors also requiring balancing, so I don't know that a broad general policy is really achievable in any event, although I agree we could discuss that somewhere else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, this matter isn't about crafting a policy or guideline, though; it's about an administrator restoring two poor articles by this editor after the articles were deleted per WP:G5 and giving a pitiful explanation for having restored them. He has not even participated in this thread. I mean, why exactly should we keep articles by this ArbCom-banned/WMF-banned editor? That's the point of this thread. I also notice that at 02:27 (a little after your "02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)" post above), you deleted User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary, stating, "declarations of intent by Office-banned user to unlawfully access the site in breach of the terms of use." I don't understand the problem with having re-posted commentary by this editor (other than giving him a platform to rant), especially since one of the messages can be seen in my archives because I'd responded to him before it was archived, and considering the messages were used as evidence here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, as pointed out above by JohnCD, we already have Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Why the heck should we be enabling Leucosticte? That is what I want to know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be enabling this WMF-banned editor. However, reposting his personal commentary and opinions about his intention to defy the ban is even more problematic than reposting his actual content. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, considering that I've seen how problematic Leucosticte's edits and articles can be, and considering that I only reposted his personal commentary as evidence for this thread, I'm going to have to disagree that these repostings are more problematic than "reposting his actual content." If his personal commentary was something I felt was too distasteful to repost, I'd feel differently. The postings are distasteful (considering the sickening message and/or intent behind them), but not to the point where I feel they should be censored at all costs. Not even in the case of legal implications. Either way, I want to reiterate that I appreciate your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Johnnycomelately here. I looked at List of tools used in sex offender forensic psychological evaluations and it's really not a good or even halfway decent article. If it should be anything, it should be a redirect to the only bluelink in the bunch, but it's not a good redirect because it's not a good search term. Sadads, if you have anything to add to the discussion on Talk:Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk (where NeilN also expressed his hesitation about this article and its provenance, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime I am going to go ahead and delete it (again). Even if this here forum is not the best forum, there's a pretty clear consensus, and I see the same on that talk page. -- Wait, is NeilN busily deleting Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk as I'm typing this? Drmies (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Yes, my next post was actually going to be here. Deleted based on this conversation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies and NeilN. We can close this thread now, or wait to see if anyone else has something to state in it. But given the few votes above, it seems weak to have some official close judging that there is consensus to delete any article by this editor. We can let the thread die on its own, give it a generic close, or whatever else is suitable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just posting to confirm that I too agree with these deletions. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And I'm posting to agree with NYB. Personally, just speaking as someone who still like to try to rescue articles sometimes, I think G5 is somewhat counterproductive, despite its obvious usefulness in many situations. (My own standard for rewriting is now to a/ do it only if the subject is actually famous, not just notable and b/wait 6 months , But this particular individual and articles is not the one to use as an example for modifying the rule, because if the strict use of the rule is applicable anywhere, it's here. The foundation has gotten more involved with global bans because of global login, which otherwise creates some additional means of evasion. They've also taken child protection over from arb com, to the great relief of all us arbs, who have been asking them to do it for years. I would now treat a global ban more or less as I would treat OFFICE, & at some point we may want to say so specifically. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a choice here. They are office banned and everything must be nuked --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aryanprince

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Aryanprince (talk · contribs)
• 37.122.177.152 (talk · contribs)

The user (one user, does not sign himself) continues, despite warning, to restore an older unstable revision to the article Serbs. Compare revisions. On 20 September the IP restored a section on the ethnonym of Serbs, which includes various theories (see Names of the Serbs and Serbia), a section on DNA results (see Genetic studies on Serbs), a section on "identity" but which does not include such information (I have since created National identity of Serbia), in place of the summarized "ethnology"-section (from March) which includes interlinks to each article for further information, as the unstable revision included claims and data which has no academic concensus, but is still included in the respective articles. In my subsequent reverts, I used the summary and commented "unconstructive", "disruptive".

I reverted when I noticed it on 7 October. The user reverts it on 13 October, I then revert on 19 October, welcome and noticed, without a word from him, he then contacts me today 23.20, reverts 23.22, I message him 23.25, then revert 23.25, awaiting to initiate a discussion, he contacts me in 23.31.

Here comes the incident. In Serbo-Croatian, specifically Montenegrin, he says "I am telling you (more like English "You, listen to me", an order, which marks his language), the Genetics must be at Serbs as it always has. That links exist does not matter, many things have their own pages then they exist in specified size in other articles. That which is linked there nobody reads, only that which stands in the main article. And don't you tell me nothing for the last time because Wikipedia was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother (insult) so that you may establish order here. Don't in any event undo me once more that which is nicely referenced because I will make you a "party" here have you understood me? (threat)

He then reverted again in 23.32 (2RR). After this, I started tracing him. Apart from this "conflict", the user (IP) has earlier made uncivil comments, such as:

• "... (English translation: "Shame on you and you should be ashamed of yourself for everything you do, you found yourself here to cover up the name of Novak Djokovic. You are worse than these from the Serbian Wikipedia") ... you are lier. The only reason here is Djokovic's homeland. Western facists can not stand the fact that a Serb from "nowhere", as they say, is winning their tournaments ..."
• "-Nationalistic speech- ... I don't want to sign to Wikipedia because I don't want to participate to your mass media encyclopedia and propaganda. Your Wikipedia is nothing but the written word of the USA and GB imagination of the how the World should look like, and everyone knows that their World is twisted as their minds."
• 95.155.24.199 (talk · contribs): "but don't worry nothing lasts forever nether will you and your propaganda."

So to summarize, as I've understood it, the user has a nationalistic agenda, trying to use the unstable revision (the theories on ethnonym and DNA results) as "proof" that the neighbouring peoples are Serbs, and that the Serbs are an antique people. That is why he insists on the unstable revision. He is simply WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote many times you translated wrong and you didn't translated it correctly only to accuse me for what I didn't wrote. But to make it easier for you I will write it on English here and now. Yes, Wikipedia is propaganda when it comes to Serbs. A simple example is the two you mentioned. Novak Djokovic is the sole article which name is not written on native language (special characters). A sole tennis player, sole human being whose name you didn't wrote with the special characters. And guess what, he is a Serb. Another thing is Serbian genetics. 95% nations on Wikipedia, in their articles they have Genetics sub theme where their Genetics is written. Serbs had them too until few months ago. Then someone came and in two clicks removed Serbian genetics in their main article. I have to tell you that this genetics research was done by European Union, it is on their Official Website. Everything was referenced, written correctly (not by me, by someone other, long time ago). Then one day I saw someone removed it, and I undone the removal. Since then this started. And I will tell you why that happened. The research proves that the Serbs have the most Haplogroupe I2 (Illyrian genetics) in Europe. Variating from minimum 30% to maximum of 60% in Herzegovina. Someone does not like this fact. That is why they delete it. Things like this are standalone proofs that Wikipedia is Serbian antipropaganda. In addition I have to tel you that I don't expect nothing from this what I wrote. The decision has already been premade. My account is going to be banned because I am Serbian. But I couldn't care less, only thing that matters to me is my pride and arrogance. You see, I am arrogant even in this situation. This is what you will never feel. My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aryanprince, do I understand you correctly? If you are banned you will return using other accounts or editing from an IP address? Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like a declaration of intent to me. The comments about Novak Đoković appear spurious, as there's no attempt to whitewash either Djokovic's Serbian nationality or the native spelling of his name; Novak Djokovic is the common English-language spelling of his name, and he uses that spelling of his name in his professional life, see [22] -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Common English spelling is also Bjorn Borg but on Wikipedia you still use special characters as Björn Borg, for him and another 100 000 articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He continues at Serbs.--Zoupan 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And again.--Zoupan 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

First I thought that this was a simple Serbian nationalist. Now I see that it is an illusionist. Here are some edits from 95.155.27.190 (talk · contribs) with strikingly similar patterns (nationalism, unsigned), though with an opposite stance and sloppy with punctuations, in 2012: Here he changes Nemanjić dynasty from "Serbs" to "Montenegrins". Here he comments to an user: "Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail". Here he comments about Duklja: "[...] Somehow Serbs(It is obvious that Serb wrote this article,like so many other articles about history of Montenegro)conclude that this means that Duklja was Serbian land???Needless to say that majority of the Duklja population were Roman Catholics unlike Eastern Ortodox Serbs.Why are you doing this?". With Aryanprince (talk · contribs), the person acts like a Serbian ultra-nationalist (strangely, with a Nazi username), trying indeed, to play on the West vs. Serbia card. The person, with other IPs, identifies as "Montenegrin", and not "Serb". This is a SPA.--Zoupan 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User Zoupan (talk · contribs) is mentioning me as some IP adress but i dont know why. I never talked about Duklja on this wikipedia, and never changed anything on Nemanjic Dinasty. The IP adress he is writing here is not mine, and I also have to tell you that in Serbia and Montenegro we still have dynamic IP adresses, so what is my IP adress today is someone's else IP adress tomorow within our Internet provider. So only what I write as Aryanprince or Alliance is mine edits, nothing else. I use Aryanprince nick because when wikipedia merged they changed my old Alliance nick and told me I need to use new nick because someone from english wikipedia has the Alliance nick. I see he also charged me for Nazi nick but my real name is Arijan, when I write it on english j=>y and I write Aryan. I don't know how he connected me with Nazi Germany. I want him to apologise to me now cos insults, because combined first and second word war Nazi Germany with its satelites killed billions of my people. I really cant stand this insults anymore.--Aryanprince (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of intent to provoke, exaggerate, and quote out of context here. As "insults" go, the supposed insults as translated are mild indeed. When does saying "you do not own Wikipedia" (as in "Wikipedia was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother") become an insult worthy of ANI? Aryanprince has also stated that he is not 95.155.27.190 and the content of the edits made by that IP address backs that up. The outrage that Aryanprince has expressed against Zoupan's "Nazi username" claim is completely justified. Anyone who knows the history of the region concerned will know how truly offensive such an accusation would be. Aryanprince is obviously not a native English speaker, so some leeway in his use of English should be allowed, and the attempt by Doug Weller, backed by The Anome, to trick or manipulate Aryanprince into saying he would ignore any block leaves a bad taste. What I think we actually have here is mostly just a content issue and an inexperienced editor who has difficulty expressing his reasoning. Aryanprince needs to be advised that the proper place for content discussion after a bold edit is reverted is not more reverts with edit summaries or angry postings on other editors pages, but careful reasoning presented on the article talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

NB, Zoupan's National identity of Serbia seems like a pov fork to me. It contains minimal content, content that could easily be incorporated into the parent article. We have no "National identity of Germany" or "National identity of France" articles, countries with far more complex and long-lasting issues of identity and formation and purpose that that of Serbia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

One does not mention others grandmothers in the Balkans. Calling it "mild" is still acknowledging that it is insulting, although if you think I have exaggerated, I ask you to copy the original text (which is hidden with the translation) and ask a Serbo-Croatian speaker to translate it and tell you how it sounds. The tone is obvious in that language. The ANI is not based on a sentence alone, but on the behaviour of the user (duh). The old account that Aryanprince claims to have used, Alliance~enwiki (talk · contribs), has no contributions. I think that his name is as clear as it gets, and his try to "write it in English" is just funny — remember that he got crazy about the name of Novak Djokovic (see quotes), and note that Arijan is pronounced A-ree-yan, which would become "Ariyanprince" or "Areyan", and not Aer-yan (as in Aryanprince). It is obvious that he is (or plays) a nationalist. The "attempt to trick" was in fact a good faith second chance; Aryanprince already said "My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles". National identity of Serbia is not a POV-fork.--Zoupan 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Zoupan created article, Genetic studies on Serbs is not a pov fork and seems to have legitimate reasons to exist. However, it seems to have been created to remove content from the Serbs article. Zoupan has been using its existence to claim that it is appropriate to remove ALL the generic studies content that Aryanprince wants to add into the Serbs article. This is not a reasonable position to take. The amount of content that Aryanprince wants to add is excessive given the existence of the more specialized article, but there has to be a middle ground compromise. There is also History of the Serbs - it seems like a duplicate article, given that almost exactly the same ground is covered by Serbs - one of them has to go, I think. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this clear as water: "When someone says 50% black OR very brown hair, the truth can also be 49% brown and 1% black, but the way it is written it forces the state "50% black", it is game of words. Does this source have detailed information about this? Also, does this source mention the skin color?" The user's name fits, doesn't it?--Zoupan 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean here? Both you and Aryanprince see to be happy having that "50% black OR very brown hair" wording [23] (it's in both versions). This is clearly personal abuse [24]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He is not quoting the source... The source says: "45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair." Now, Aryanprince claims with that source that: "the most of Serbs generally have brown eyes and hair but significant part of them has light eyes and hair. There is also a smaller part which has red or even green hair. The skin is white, brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total.". How long is this going to take..?--Zoupan 22:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He is doing that now, but he wasn't doing it when I made my post above - the diff I cited contained exactly the same text regarding hair colour. The content you are both arguing about seems to have no significance to me - and no significance is stated or explained in the article. So what if 45% have "pure brown eyes". Why is it significant enough to be mentionable? Why is it significant enough to be argued over? 15% might wear socks with sandals, but so what? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is getting silly.--Zoupan 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted what Zoupan (talk · contribs) wrote in article because this reason. He referenced the statement with the source (Joel Martin Halpern) who wrote: "...while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair...". But Halpern is actually citing the Carleton S. Coon and his book The races of Europe, page 590 where Coon wrote: "...Over 50 per cent have black or dark brown hair...". The difference is this word "very", which was added ether by Zoupan or by Halpern. If it was Halpern this is the sign of making harm to Serbian people, why would he change the citation? And if it was Zoupan then I don't know what to say... Next thing is skin color. Carleton S. Coon wrote about it, and not me. This is the citation, from the same book: "...The skin is brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total...". So, to summerize. When Zoupan's source (Halpern) wrongly cites "The races of europe" than nothing happens, but when I correctly cite it then I am racist? This is shame...--Aryanprince (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Plausible. Not by me. Here you go. I linked this 22.56, prior to Aryan's above comment, he then answered in 23.09, then still calls me a liar here 23.18? WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If the earlier source does not use the word "very", but the later source does and cites that earlier source as its only source for that particular data, then the earlier source is the one whose wording should be used to decide on article content. Halpern is citing only Coon for that data, Coon does not say "very", Halpern has added the word "very" for unknown reasons. What Aryanprince has been saying above regarding that content and its sources is correct, but he has only been saying it very recently on the article talk page, earlier arguments were about other content. At its heart this is just a content issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So if that was not you then Halpern added it when he wrongly cited original book. He made harm to Serbs, his citation is not correct. That makes him unreliable source so I would ask you nicely to remove that from article or I would have to remove it, again.--Aryanprince (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is not the content, but Aryanprince's attitude, and his edit-warring. I undid his removal, and, as a response Aryanprince:

1. edit warred me (he has already edit-warred other editors), see article's history;
2. he told me to go edit about the genetics of my own nation.
3. On top of that he called me a liar,
4. He called me a cheater,
5. Unhappy, he called me again a liar (three times).
6. He is not happy again and called me squiptar, using it as a derogatory for Albanians when used by South Slavic (Shqiptar#Use_in_South_Slavic_languages.)

In an only day, I received more insult than what I would receive in a year in my normal life. Thank you Wikipedia! Not only I find his style rude, but I notice that they are not trying to find consensus in a peaceful manner, and I feel like they are not calm enough to be able to edit Wikipedia. Someone please stop this editor: they are creating a hate atmosphere and that's the least we need in Balkan related topics. The guy is unstoppable. Please help! --MorenaReka (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Balkan related topics seem to need thick skins! Despite all Aryanprince's insults (and he has been at the receiving end of some severe ones too) I think he has been trying to raise legitimate content points (though taking things far to personally while doing it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User MorenaReka (talk · contribs) I will call you lier 10 000 times because you deserve it, and you are proven lier. You lied again in last post. I never told you to go at your nation's article to write genetics, instead I told you this: "... I suggest you first to go and describe your own nation on its article...". So I never said genetics, i said description, lier.--Aryanprince (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Aryanprince has now made six reverts on Serbs within the past 24h, but had unfortunately not been given a 3RR-warning until I gave him one a few minutes ago... Thomas.W ^talk 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Aryanprince has now been topic banned by Future Perfect for six months from all articles relating to Serbs and Serbia, which should cool things down a bit (suspected socking, i.e. using multiple accounts/IPs, as hinted at in this thread, should be reported at WP:SPI BTW, not here). Thomas.W ^talk 19:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2.48.32.105

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP is repeatedly calling me a "son of a whore" on my user page for no apparent reason. His contribs. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He has since moved on to others. See contribs again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs, feel free to ping me direct if there are any more, or if you want a temporary semi-protect on your user. Harrias ^talk 15:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imposter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a user who pretents to be me --> User:Zwærg Nase, posting in Formula One related talk pages which I often frequent. I bring this to admin attention here since none of the above examples seemed to fit my case. How is this usually dealt with? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thank you, that was a lot quicker than I expected! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[25] I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is.[26] Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: [27],[28],[29],[30]. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above example is just another example of this persons actions. They have recently tried to start a edit war on the D. B. Cooper article and on my Talk page, claiming that You Tube/ABC is a reliable source, whilst slating ABC (and the BBC) on there user page. I believe an admin warning is the least that should be applied. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What a complete load of bullocks! Not even going to waste my time replying to this. If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Wikipedia becomes a better encyclopedia. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas, please do not tell others to "GO SUCK IT". Highly inappropriate remark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool it Jonas. This is not the board to freak out on. Strike it mate. Quickly. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't want to make this a content issue, I will comment that (probably) most historians would disagree with the added content that Barbarossa was a "preventative surprise attack" on the USSR. This has actually been the source of some controversy -- in other words, if Stalin intended to strike first. In my (worthless) opinion, Jodl is perhaps not the best source to comment on whether this was the case. While I'm certainly no expert on the SS, I will add that the links provided don't necessarily show a positive light towards the organization -- calling them ruthless, fanatical, and so on is hardly positive. Regarding the forced labour edit, I'm not sure what the exact diff is in that case. Jonas, please, don't inadvertently bolster their case. GAB^Hello! 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This case is not about the use of a single word "preventative" originating from the Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW) Alfred Jodl, which may or may not be accurate (and can easily be redacted) even though any reference to a singular author David M. Glantz about the quote-unquote "most historians" allegedly disagreeing with it is ridiculous. This case is about bullying, and about removal of major source of judicial data about the SS history as well as not properly acknowledging the fact that Schutzstaffel committed massacres in Soviet occupied Poland... long before they reached Russia in Operation Barbarossa. I spoke about it in talk, but the evasive and incomprehensible reply from Jonas Vinther was for me the first sign of something more troubling going on. Poeticbent talk 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In using "preventative", Jodl was simply repeating what Hitler told the generals, but there's not a shred of evidence that Stalin planned to attack Germany at that time, which is confirmed by Stalin's refusal to listen to Churchill, Sorel and other sources who told him that Hitler was going to attack, and even gave the date. Stalin's personal response also confirms that he was totally blindsided. Hitler's claim that the attack was "preventative" was designed to provide a rationale for what he had wanted to do from the beginning, back to the time of writing Mein Kampf. No reputable historian believes anything else. Whether Jodl actually believe it was "preventative" or not, I don't know. BMK (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowing Stalin's "intentions" would be "mind reading" on Wikipedia's part. What we know for sure is that there was a continuing build up of the Soviet military presence along the Curzon Line before Barbarossa in spite of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty signed several months earlier. However, these facts have nothing to do with the actual AN/I report. This report is about the removal (and the troubling absence) of all references leading to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which is unexplainable without suspicion of promoting a desired point of view. Poeticbent talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There was an issue two weeks ago regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:TX6785_appears_obsessed. Related? John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, as this has nothing to do with redirects. GAB^Hello! 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther has retired. GAB^Hello! 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering the reality of how things work on Wikipedia, I suggest that in the future we always use scare quotes when indicating that an editor has announced that they've walked away from editing, i.e. Jonas Vinther has "retired". BMK (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther often retires.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A few comments. First, Jonas is not the sock:User:TX6785. Secondly, he has at times been cavalier in his edits and taken things very personally, that is true. With that said, he has done some good work in reviewing articles for GA, and in bringing articles up to GA. I do think that bringing the latest disagreement here was premature and the matter should have been discussed in greater detail on the talk page and if necessary a RfC could have been done. And it is true that he has "retired before". At any rate, the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When I finish the book I'm currently reading, I plan to read Anatomy of the SS State next, and may well re-read The SS: The Alibi of a Nation after that. If I follow through on this plan, I'll probably be doing some editing of the article, as that's my normal pattern of behavior. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The article still needs work so have a look, BMK. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Apparently Jonas Vinther retires very frequently. A few months ago he "retired" because he found Wikipedia to be "anti-fascist and pro-democratic I refuse to further help build up a site that both directly and indirectly glorifies leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt" [31], but there are several other "retirements" before that. His user page two days ago before "retiring" stated that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap" [32]. This in combination with coming here just to shout "GO SUCK IT" leads me to conclude we're dealing with someone who is here to right great wrongs. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the pov involved I would suggest rather to wrong great rights.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to withdraw my statement of retirement. I can also point out my retirement had nothing to do with this noticeboard. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean a wikidiva surely? Blackmane (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG, don't you know how politically incorrect you're being? We don't call Wikidivas "WP:DIVAs" anymore, we ask them as polite as pie on Sunday to try "not to be high maintenance". (Soon, problem editors won't be "blocked", they'll be "temporarily redirected", and sockpuppets will merely be "differently personified editors".) BMK (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, please accept my most effusive apologies. When will this be redirected to this I wonder? Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI and NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since July 2015, article subject Rick Alan Ross has been using various editors to mold said article to his liking. I brought my concerns about this happening to WP:COIN back in early October where the report was essentially dismissed [33]. Apparently, this is not the first time he has come to Wikipedia to work on the article and skew the content. He was brought to COIN back in 2008 [34], as well. Starting in June 2015, Ross started trying to control content in and out of the article as an IP by going to the article talk page and various noticeboards as well as editor talk pages: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. His own talk page his laden with editors spending time and energy discussing the article [47]. His continuous complaints and requests at the article talk page has been quite a time-sink, as well: [48]. On at least one occasion, he was dissatisfied with the consensus reached at the article talk page and the closing of the discussion (while continuing to exhibit WP:IDHT behavior) and then went forum shopping at WP:BLPN [49]. If look through the article talk page, you can see there are several editors in agreement that Ross' involvement is related to self-promotion and his continual requests and direction on how he would like the article to appear have taken up way too much time of editors attempting to answer his questions and assist him. Add to this his refusal to go with consensus and a persistence with WP:IDHT and there has been an enormous amount of time given freely to this one individual. That said, he never seems pleased with how the article portrays his public image and I, personally, don't see an end in sight with his requests and complaints. There is a strong amount of WP:COI going on, but WP:SPA and WP:NOTTHERE as well. He has not edited any other articles or done anything in Wikipedia other than what is connected to the article on him. That says to me he's not interested in building the encyclopedia, just building the Rick Alan Ross article as a means of self-promotion. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a resume service or promotional website host. My purpose in coming here is not to see him blocked, however, I think at this point, at the very least, a topic ban in regard to editing or requesting edits at the article on him would be appropriate. Something has to get him to stop, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been dealing with Rick Alan Ross for several months. He has spent the entire time trying to mold the article to fit his vision. I have tried to get him to address only maters of factual accuracy and violations of WP:BLP. A review of Talk:Rick Alan Ross will show what a time sink this has become. Rick Alan Ross is here to guard and mold his BLP and for no other reason. He has been brought to COIN several times to address his behavior. He was required to identify his account to ArbCom but continued to edit his article as an IP until the page was semi-protected, forcing him to register and identify an account. His behavior indicates to me an intention to minimally comply with our policies and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants.

He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and, in my opinion, should be topic banned from all maters relating to Rick Alan Ross and cults/Scientology broadly construed or simply blocked since I seriously doubt he would edit anything else if banned from subjects that relate to himself. Pinging other editors involved with the saga @JzG, Jytdog, Govindaharihari, and Francis Schonken: @Collect, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, Elmmapleoakpine, and Cwobeel: Jbh^Talk 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To back up what Jbhunley noted above "and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants", I think it's worth noting that wearing down others to get the result he wants is precisely what being a cult deprogrammer (Ross' profession) is about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please lay off the pop psychology. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please lay off the personal attacks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding this sanction note from 2009 ([50]): "...instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses...Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)" Unless I'm reading the preceding wrong, it would seem RAR violated this 2009 sanction when he edited as an IP earlier this year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RAR has had some quite legitimate complaints in the past, and I fear that his attitude reflects that of some prior editors who seemed intent on accenting the negative about the living person. I note that since the BLP is directly connected with the famed Scientology arbitration case (it appears on the best interest of Scientology proponents to diss Mr. Ross by making sure we know he was a used car dealer, and that he lost a huge lawsuit where a lawyer associated possibly with the CoS was involved, etc.). Ignoring the original problems here would certainly let us bar Ross now - but when the Scientology issues are included, I think he is entitled to a little leeway - we can keep some of the SPS sourcing out without too much effort as he now knows better than to edit the BLP (or play at being an anonymous IP), and thus I am disinclined to join this fray now. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Final_decision. Collect (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Related ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_.28consultant.29. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Already noted in the long list of links above ^^^. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I find none of the above has the traction purported. I find the subject of the biography being vilified for having the temerity to use the Talk page to steer the article in a direction that represents improvement. At present he wants a book which he has written mentioned in the article in such a way likely to allow a reader to avail themselves of it. The book is not necessarily self-published as it is published in more than one market. The subject has more than one time posed an interesting question. He wants to know why in what seems to be a parallel example—Steven Hassan—we find a similarly authored book highlighted in that article. Predictably enough we find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counterargument. More substantial policies such as undue weight are being invoked; I don't think they are especially applicable. The subject of the biography obviously has an overriding message which motivates his life's work which one can assume is articulated in his latest book. As long as this book is squarely on the subject for which he is notable I think it is a far stretch to call highlighting his book an example of "undue weight". Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that Ross likely keeps bringing up Hassan's article as a parallel because of the feud between the two of them that's been going on for a few years. The following link is to an archive of the Rick Ross website forum: [51]. Not trying to dig up and post dirt on anyone, but it's somewhat obvious that the animosity between Ross and Hassan is feeding his desire to see equal treatment between the articles. And while we're on the topic of paralleling articles, let's not forget about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How can you "guess" what motivates a person? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikipedia editors "guess" continually (especially in the drama boards such as this one) as to what someone's motivation is when their behavior has come under scrutiny at a noticeboard. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: You have the 'book' issue completely wrong. He was complaining about [52] this version, where his book is in its own 'Sources' section so it is still a 'reference' and wanted the text simply moved down two lines so it would be part of the 'Further reading' section. He seems to have wanted his book recommended as further reading in the article rather than 'merely' a source. That is purely using Wikipedia for promotion - that was the point I lost all AGF with him. He felt strongly enough to start a BLPN discusion to force the issue when the talk page consensus was against him. I think that is what got all of the people over there a couple days ago doing clean up. I do not know because he did not notify me, the other editors or post a notice on the talk page about the matter He was asked repeatedly to do so when he brings issues up at noticeboards. Jbh^Talk 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If the book was used as a source for writing the article, it belongs in a "Source" or "Bibliography" section. "Further reading" should only be for additional resources that haven't as yet been used in writing the article. BMK (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we realize that. It's one of the things the article subject has been unhappy about (and part of what Jbh is referring to above). Ross has refused to accept exactly what you pointed out, BMK. That's part of the reason why - as Jbh states above - it's pretty obvious that Ross is more interested in promoting himself, his services, and his book(s) than building an encyclopedia. Hence, the reason why I have titled this discussion COI and NOTHERE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it sound as if my comment was contradicting something Jbhunley said, I was merely confirming what I believe to be the standard practice, which is in agreement with what you and Jbh are saying. BMK (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't. I just wanted to make sure you got that we already had that covered. Part of the issue here is Ross' tendentious behavior that included going forum shopping at BLP/N after being told what policy was in regard to referencing/further reading. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's really out of line to try to tell the subject of a BLP that he is topic-banned from the talk page of that BLP. RAR is doing exactly what our COI policy says: use the talk page. If editors disagree with what he wants, then fine -- except that it's not at all inappropriate for him to go to BLPN. This is not forum-shopping -- again it's entirely in line with COI. If other editors find it frustrating, perhaps their efforts are best directed elsewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Going to BLPN is appropriate. This is a job for the BLP noticeboard. It's a common situation - subject of a biographical article doesn't like what's being said about them, tries to change their own article, and runs into Wikipedia's rules and bureaucracy. Then they end up at COIN, where anything that looks like self-promotion gets taken out and they get a bare-facts article, or AN/I, where they get blocked. WP:BLPN, though, is more oriented towards dealing with the problems of a bio article subject being unhappy with their bio. John Nagle (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: This issue was raised at COIN a bit over a month ago. "what seems to be a manner of dictation on how the article about him should be edited." Jbh^Talk 00:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm annoyed out of my wits by Rick Alan Ross every now and again. That being said, I think that, for the time being, Mr. Ross is essential for improving the Rick Alan Ross article, which still has many flaws. I know this noticeboard is not always very suitable to try and explain nuances – nonetheless:
  1. @Rick Alan Ross: you definitely should shape up. For instance, when the topic Cults Inside Out has been closed until "third party reliable sources with non-trivial reports about Ross' book can be given as reference" (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading) it is not up to you to reopen that topic without providing such references (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines) – Maybe a short block (one or a few days) can get this point accross to Mr. Ross. If you don't understand what "references" means in this context, please see WP:V, WP:RS and/or Wikipedia:Citing sources. For an explanation of "non-trivial" in this sentence, see WP:GNG. Maybe a day or two would suffise for you to get a grip on these Wikipedia rules, all other methods to draw your attention to this having apparently failed.
  2. To my colleagues Wikipedia-editors who try, like me, to get the mainspace article on the subject in shape: I think closing talk page topics like I did at Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading is maybe the way to go more often. When all has been said about a topic, close it. When the subject reopens (without apparently taking notice of the reasons why it was closed), close it again, like I'll probably do now for Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines. That's my method of trying to avoid this becomes a time-sink for me.
  3. On the content of the article: someone suggested Mr. Ross' notability ended after the Scott case. As far as I've been looking at reliable sources, this seems far from the case. The Institute he started after that (first under his own name, later renamed to Cult Education Institute) gets quite some coverage in reliable sources. For that reason I think Mr. Ross' presence essential to keep the article in balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I might agree with you on some of these points if RAR hadn't been here previously and hadn't been sanctioned previously and hadn't been told very recently that he needs to follow policy, accept consensus, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I might agree with you if he were truly interested in building the encyclopedia rather than building his "online resume" and promoting his book(s) and business. The man is definitely a single purpose account, not here to build and encyclopedia, and frequently behaving in a tendentious manner. That's not "balance" of any kind. That's a general net negative as a waste of the community's time, patience, and energy. We have a plethora of articles that become GA and FA without the "assistance" of the article subject. In fact, I'm certain most of them have no input from the article subject whatsoever. To use that as a selling point in keeping him from being blocked or topic banned is just silly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—at the BLP/N you say "What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory." How would it constitute undue weight to include the book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" in the "Further Reading" section of the Rick Alan Ross biography? Aren't we trying to explicate the work of the subject of this biography? Doesn't he (presumably) explain his stance on the subject for which he is notable in the latest volume which he has authored? There is no undue weight issue involved at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Please discuss that either at BLPN or on the article talk page. There is less than no reason to talk about the merits of inclusion in a third forum. Also, the back and forth between editors already familiar with the matter, about side issues, only serves to derail the ANI discussion. This is not a problem unique to this thread but rather a general problem at noticeboards. Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Jbh, it seems to me that Bus stop has a long history of stirring shit and going on unrelated tangents at articles and talk pages related to Judaism or Jewish-related BLPs. [53], [54],[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Based on him previously being banned and very narrowly avoiding a formal topic ban/sanction (less than a year ago) as well as his promise at the following AN/I report and the closing editor's comments, Bus stop shouldn't even be here commenting or at the article in question at all: "Bus stop has agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention" [61]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi—I have already asked you, at the BLP/N, how your charge of "undue weight" applies to the placement of a book in a "Further Reading" section, but you did not respond. Do you understand the meaning of WP:UNDUE? It is a part of our policy on WP:Neutral Point of View. Are you arguing that the placement of a book by the subject of the biography in the "Further Reading" section somehow compromises the neutrality of the article? Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rick Alan Ross is topic banned from Rick Alan Ross except to bring up violations of WP:BLP policy or to point out specific factual errors. The reason for this is the continued attempts to micro-manage his own biography and persistent WP:IDHT behavior on Talk:Rick Alan Ross.

• Support at proposer. Wikipedia has a policy to help subjects of biographies manage violations of WP:BLP it does not and should not encourage the subject of a biography continuously tweak their own biography to their liking - whether by editing the article itself of through persistent talk page threads. It is hard enough to manage an WP:NPOV article but it is nearly impossible when you have the subject constantly advocating their position. Jbh^Talk 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, just because it's a BLP shouldn't cause reasonable WP:COI provisions to stop applying. --LjL (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of the biography in this instance has raised eminently valid concerns. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this is an absurd proposal, the editor has acted entirely in line with WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support Individual has ignored his previous sanction for staying away from his bio and cult related articles, tries to force issues his direction, and has not once demonstrated in several years' time that he's interested in building the encyclopedia, just micro-managing his BLP. So far, his presence has been a net-negative for the 'pedia and a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Let him prove he's here for more than his online image and self promotion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but can you please point to the sanction you say he has violated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as being a solution in search of a problem. Ross should not edit the BLP proper, but I have no problem with his positions on the talk page. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – as formulated this seems a counterproductive measure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Rick Alan Ross appears to be following COI guidelines. He discusses the edits he thinks should be made to the article. Not once has this account edited the article itself, only the talk page. He also uses BLPN to discuss the article. He does do a lot of talking but there is nothing wrong with that. -- GB fan 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose based upon my own personal experience. He is acting in (fairly) good-faith, and surely declared COI and editing talk pages is what we want to encourage, not drive editors underground? Mdann52 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons brought up at the top of this section. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - user has not edited the article, and "except to bring up violations of WP:BLP policy or to point out specific factual errors" is too vague (anything can be construed as a factual error). People can ignore his comments on the talk page if so desired. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic banning the person who is the subject of an article from having anything to do with the article, bar a few vague exceptions, is unreasonable. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rick Alan Ross is blocked for three days. Reason: talk page disruption, and for refusal to inform themselves on Wikipedia core content policy.

• I've upped my initial proposal of one or two days to three days per this, which was a completely inappropriate talk page post given the circumstances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe it will help but I doubt it. He has too strong of an investment in the page and waiting three days or really any number of days to continue his WP:COI will not change that. He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encylcopedia he is here to promote himself and manage his biography. He will always be willing to put in more effort than anyone else at the page to get the version he wants. Jbh^Talk 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose To me it looks like he is reading policy and trying to comply with it. If a block would be appropriate it should not be increased because he commented that people are trying to stop him from even commenting on the article about him, especially when people want to stop him from commenting on the article about him. -- GB fan 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, think it will do nothing to block him for three days. Unless, if the behavior continues, and he will be blocked for a longer period of time? But, really, what is blocking going to do except piss him off? He says he's not here for his BLP, but for Wikipedia. I say let him prove that by showing a vested interest in editing articles not related to him or cults. So far, he's been here just for his own interests in regard to his public online image and promoting his business and his books. Unless he's forced to have a reason to be here beyond that, blocking for a few days will accomplish nothing productive. Indeed, I predict it will cause more problems. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ £
• Support Block him. He won't stay away, he won't keep his word to stay away. A block will keep him from disrupting further. I'd also like to point out that he has yet to edit anything in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with him, further strengthening the fact that WP:NOTHERE definitely applies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this effort to drive off a BLP subject who is abiding by WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Abiding by the rules should not be so blatantly punished. Collect (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per GB fan and Collect —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks are preventative not punitive. Also, I am in agreement with GB Fan and Collect. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion

Excuse me. Does this mean that I am now censored from commenting at my bio about the editing process? Given the history of my bio here, which has been edited by cult members and cult apologists, it seems that allowing me to comment is reasonable. I apologize for not knowing every detail of Wikipedia policy, but I am willing to be reasonable and work with people at Wikipedia. I don't think it is somehow self-promotion for me to be concerned about how some people may be improperly editing my bio. I don't think doing volunteer work for Wikipedia should be a requirement to comment about the editing at my bio Talk page. I have been working in the field of cultic studies since 1982 and building a database since 1996. My work is notable and has been reported about by the media around the world. I do interviews with one media outlet or another almost every month (e.g. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, CBC, Nippon, Asai, etc.). My book is notable and represents about three years work and is a synthesis of history and research with more than 1,200 footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and is 582 pages in length. It is now self-published in English and published in Chinese. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness and testified in about 20 court proceedings, including 10 states and US Federal Court after a Daubert Hearing. I have been included in 18 documentaries, invited to and lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities and have done 500 cult interventions. Only about a dozen were involuntary interventions with adults. The Jason Scott case effectively marked the end of my involuntary intervention work more than 20 years ago. I have worked with the FBI several times and received an accommodation signed by Director Mueller in 2011. I have also worked with the Israeli Ministry of Social Welfare and attended international conferences in Canada, China and Thailand. I have had papers published in academic peer-reviewed journals and contributed to a number of published books. I say all this because I have worked hard to establish my reputation and of course I am concerned how some people think they can come in an anonymously manipulate the editing process at my Wikipedia bio page or the purpose of retaliation over the Cult Education Institute database, to malign me and/or impugn my integrity. There has been good editing done at my bio and bad editing. I would like to be engaged in a reasonable process to sort this out so that facts and reliable sources are used rather than biased claims from narrow questionable sources. Getting it right and accurate is good for Wikipedia, it's good policy, good for the public and yes good for me too. I am not used to your incredible labyrinth of rules and culture, but I am willing to learn. It seems though that some editors may at times use Wikipedia rules and culture to obscure issues, block meaningful dialog and obstruct needed editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean this. Someone proposed it, and it's obvious that the proposal will not pass. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RAR, I don't know how, for all the years you've been in Wikipedia, being told the same things over again, being sanctioned, etc., you can seriously claim ignorance of policy and claim you are being censored. I call B.S. on what you are saying. None of this is new to you - you're just dealing with a largely unfamiliar audience who hasn't truly looked into your editing past. You were told to never again edit with an IP address, but you did it anyway starting at the end of June this year. Can you explain why you started back here trying to disguise who you were? Because for me, doing so after promising you wouldn't, is just the beginning of the dishonesty in what you say vs. what you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He has been editing from multiple accounts since 2009: Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) who also edits as Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) and also seemingly from anonymous IPs" [62]. There was, recently, a lot of discussion to get him to identify to ArbCom and stop editing from IPs. Much of the discussion was on his talk page but once he identified the account RickRoss1954, or some such, was renamed to Rick Alan Ross I do not know what happened to the history of the prior Rick Alan Ross. Jbh^Talk 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia. Please understand that you have many rules and customs within your culture online here that I don't know and many people don't know. What happened with my IP address was explained. I lost my password to my old account and my email address changed after rickross.com was sold and culteducation.com became my new email domain address. I posted under my name, so there was no attempt at deception. I now have an account attached to my correct email address. I never disguised who I am, don't do anything anonymous and always use my name when posting on the Web.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing for three days, and use the time to familiarize yourself with the rules. If three days aren't sufficient: use five days. If five days aren't sufficient: use ten days – etc. Anyway, don't return before a serious effort on your part to familiarize yourself with the rules. You've been given links to the rules you should concentrate on first, I wonder whether thus far you've clicked such links and looked at what editors were referring to. I proposed you edited in other areas which you are less involved in, to get familiar with the rules by editing, the way most of us got familiar with them – this you declined thus far, which you are allowed to, but then I see no other possibility than you taking a step back and take as much time as needed to get familiar with Wikipedia guidance by reading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will continue reading the rules linked. At times there seems to be conflict between the rules and how the editing is being done at my bio. I will stop and ask questions about this at the Talk page again as I have done in the past to clear the air regarding any inconsistencies or ambiguities. Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross—you have to use double brackets to send a piped-link to Daubert standard. When are you ever going to learn? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You will be held to your "OK", RAR. It should be noted here that you've said "OK" before several times, and then almost immediately reneged on it. Take three days to read the rules and understand them. If that's not enough time, take longer (as Francis suggested). But, if you continue to do the same things you've been doing whilst claiming you don't know "the rules" and "the culture" of Wikipedia, it could happen that you do end up being forced to stay away (via a block) until you understand policy and guidelines. After all, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Here's a start for you regarding policies and guidelines: WP:PG. I hope you take these warnings and suggestions seriously because they are given in all seriousness. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

*NOTE: Just as I suspected, because of similar incidents where RAR has not followed through on promises he has made in Wikipedia, he added comments at the AfD on the BLP in question here. He did this a half hour after saying he would go away for at least three days to bone up on policy and guidelines. I am just not seeing how he is going to do what he says he will do, nor do I think he takes things here seriously. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm reposting here what I just posted at the AfD for the Ross BLP as a response to RAR's comments. The comments are here: Excuse me, but it is not whiny, demanding, or self-promotion to expect accuracy and fair unbiased editing. It is not a solution to either censor me or delete the bio because it isn't exactly as some editors prefer it to be. I have raised questions at the Talk page about the consistent application of Wikipedia rules and fairness. That is not disruption, but rather constructive criticism. It is troublesome to see the way that some people periodically pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash me. But recently the bio has become more stable. My fingers in the pie is necessary to offer some balance to what has been a very messy and often nasty process of editing. I certainly don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but rather a check and meaningful frame of reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)"

RAR, you said you'd go away for at least three days and not post or edit in order to get a handle on policy and guidelines. And, as I expected, you reneged on that promise just as you have previously with similar promises. Do you think we're kidding here? Please don't answer. Just fulfil your promise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about some of your comments some more, I'm struck by the outright and sheer arrogance of them. First of all, BLPs in Wikipedia are written quite well and without the assistance of the article subject all the time. It's been that way since the first Wikipedia BLP was created. We don't need you or any article subject to help us write such bios. As far as balance, Wikipedia editors (especially those of us who have been here a while and have thousands and thousands of edits to our credit) know how to create the appropriate balance in an article based on Wikipedia guidelines. And if we ever get flummoxed, we have each other to work with in order to get it right. We don't need you be "a check" or a frame of reference, because we have reliable references available to us. That's the way it works for all BLPs, in fact. Do you honestly think we are all so inept that we can't get it right? Do you seriously think that you, someone who has said over and over again that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, can better edit or edit by proxy than those of us who already know policy and guidelines? If people truly do "pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash" you, it's taken care of. Those of us who have been answering your questions and have taken inordinate amounts of time trying to explain things to you have the article on our Watchlists, so we know when an edit occurs and will correct it if it's outside the bounds of policy. You really don't need to be here for the article to be done right nor do you need to keep a guard on the article. We're not idiots and we're not new to this. You, on the other hand, keep telling us how you don't get Wikipedia. Well, if you really don't get how things work, please stay out of the way of those who do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I never called anyone an idiot. I think that my knowledge of the facts and reliable sources about my own life and work is meaningful and probably more informed and in-depth than most Wikipedia editors. Also, given the sorry history of my bio and all the sock puppets posting there it isn't meaningful or constructive to insult me. I will continue to read the Wikipedia links offered. I will take a break to do this and appreciate the constructive criticism and helpful suggestions offered. If you will please stop posting misleading negative rants about me there would be no need for me to respond. Let's cool off and take a break. We both have better things to do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake -- can someone please close this -- there isn't going to be any admin action here and it's descending into farce. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is really a BLP problem. The article subject isn't editing their own article, which would be grounds for a block; they're just commenting on the talk page and on noticeboards. That's not grounds for blocking. If Mr. Ross wants changes to his own article, the best way to get them would be to make very specific, short, edit requests. See WP:COMPETENCE, section on "Inability to talk about incremental changes". Wikipedia is a one step at a time system, especially on controversial subjects. I suggest that Mr. Ross prioritize his issues with the article, and request his top priority change on the article talk page, per WP:EDITREQ. The request will be discussed, and either accepted and implemented or rejected by other editors. After that's been dealt with, repeat with the next issue. Please focus, and you might get more of what you want. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Having spent some time reviewing this discussion in full and having read the last 20 or so talk threads, I've come away with a mixed impression of the accusations being leveled here. On the one hand, there can be little doubt that Mr. Ross is here as an SPA, that he has an obvious COI and that he is engaged in an effort to present a given narrative about his work and how it has been received. However, while there are WP:NOTHERE aspects to his motivations, and he has undoubtedly required significant editor man hours in communication to apply (or reject) his proposed changes, I can't see many instances where he has crossed the bright line into disruptive behaviour. He doesn't edit the article directly and he doesn't, insofar as I've seen, lob personal attacks at those who disagree with him, although I'm not sure what to make of his perception that others have used the article as a vehicle to attack him; without looking at the extended history of the article, I can't say for sure, but is suspect many of those changes are more good-faith than he presumes). He can be a little tendentious when other editors aren't seeing, he clearly has not internalized many of our guidelines and principles and he needs to work on being less confrontational in some respects, but having dealt with a lot COI situations over the years in which an inexperienced editor was involved in editing content that is of personal relation to themselves, I can say it gets a lot worse than this. This business with the IP editing is worrisome, and if there is any future indication of sock or meat puppetry, I'd readily support the ban hammer coming down, but his explanation of what happened previously sounds plausible enough that I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

So long as Mr. Ross sticks to the talk page, doesn't become disruptively insistent on any given point and makes effort to acclimate himself to the way things are done on Wikipedia, I don't see why he can't be involved. Mind you it's not ideal, and I'll tell Mr. Ross directly now that it is a bad idea to edit any article in which you have too personal a stake, to say nothing of an article of which you are the topic. I don't think any Wikipedian who has fully understood the project's goals and has its needs as their first interest would ever do that, so if you find that you are being regarded as something of an outsider here, that is why. However, you have made no secret of the fact that you are here for more personal ends anyway, so I suspect that will not bother you overmuch. But bear in mind that even while you have the green light to contribute here, becoming intractable on points where consensus is against you will cause that tolerance to evaporate in a hurry. Also--and this part is just my two cents, not so much mandated policy--it would probably not hurt to apply an excess of cordiality to demonstrate appreciation for the not inconsiderable amount of time that it takes your fellow editors to consider your requests and implement them where appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise—should Winkelvi be saying "Individual has ignored his previous sanction for staying away from his bio and cult related articles…"? Was there a "previous sanction"? Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if you are asking a question to which you already know the answer. But as the question has been put to me--no, there has been no sanction that I have seen. I presume that WV was referencing comments above which suggested RAR should take a few days to commit themselves to a better understanding of our policies before contributing further, but I agree that those recommendations, though advisable, do not constitute a community sanction or binding mandate. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang yet?

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) has now turned quite hostile, particularly with this comment ("your word is no good and you have proven yourself to be totally fucking disruptive" -- at an AfD, of all places). Perhaps a warning will be sufficient -- but I'm confident the community will not want to tolerate this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi does not "get" it. They do not understand policy. They do not understand editor-to-editor communication. I will assume good faith unless it is impossible to do so. The subject of the article certainly should be able to have input at the article's Talk page. This is in the interests of Wikipedia. It does not matter at all whether they edit elsewhere or not. For instance at the article Talk page the subject of the articled questioned his characterization in our article as: "Ross' moral credentials seem shaky at best". It turns out this was a very minor opinion—not representative of the majority of sources. Why would the subject of the biography not be concerned with his reputation and how Wikipedia depicts him? This was corrected in the article. But it is the input of the subject of the article that helped us to create a balanced portrait of him. And yet Winkelvi argues as if it is the fault of our subject that he seeks to right his image. Of course seeks to do this. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh, let's not overcorrect on WV's overcorrection. I agree that Mr. Ross has (mostly) stayed within the limits demanded as a result of his COI, but he's certainly here to present a particular narrative and has not internalized WP:Neutrality in the slightest. He might not satisfy WP:NOTHERE to the extent that any kind of administrative action is warranted, but he certainly fits the spirit of the concept; he's not here to build the encyclopedia for its merits, he's here to shape his own image within it. The fact that he is not strictly barred from doing so doesn't change the fact that he is really the last person we want heavily invested in the article. I welcome the sources he can bring, but I'd just as soon he wasn't making content suggestions. If he insists on doing so, and can respect the restraints placed on him in that regard, so be it. But I can't say as I blame others for being suspicious of his recommendations or having a lower-than-normal level of tolerance for instances of WP:IDHT. I do suspect that Winkelvi could benefit from taking a step back from this issue and decompressing now that more eyes are on the matter, but I definitely think their efforts are good-faith and above-board here. At the same time, I also think that they should take the rough consensus of this discussion to heart; Mr. Ross has not crossed any lines into truly disruptive behaviour and should be allowed (if not exactly encouraged) to participate in the manner they have been on the talk page. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Winkelvi needs to immediately step back and disengage; and if Winkelvi cannot then we need to find a way to effect that. The growing dispute between the two is starting to muddy the waters and I think the article would be best served with Winkelvi's disengagement. The tone and language of Winkelvi's engagement is inappropriate at this stage; I get the impression this is due to frustrations dealing with Ross and so I don't support any punitive actions. But definitely something needs to change! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? How many days has it been since I communicated with the editor in question or commented here (prior to this post)? Seems like you're just doing a drive by without paying attention to the timeline. What purpose does that kind of commentary serve other than to WP:POKE? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, for the en-th time, please abide by WP:CIVIL, be respectful towards other editors (even if you disagree), and try to consider what language is appropriate.[63] —Sladen (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sladen, for the umpteenth time, go find someone else to fuck with, hound and harass. You are way too interested in what I say and do in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please consider the number of times that your Winkelvi username comes up here at WP:ANI, and if there are any active steps that could be taken to reduce the frequency of those incidents. A WP:WIKIBREAK may be useful. —Sladen (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2015 (that

Better you should worry about your problematic behavior that includes your strange obsession with my behavior, edits, and discussions with others. Not to mention how many times you have gone out of your way to criticize and/or chastise me. Clean up your own act before commenting about others. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Having made their views known at the AFD, WV should just stop badgering RAR whenever he comments. Continuing in this vein risks descending into the realm of harassment. It's been brought to the attention of others, both admins and not. Let the community discussion take its course. Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. Take the time to read every thread on him or the article in the last couple of weeks. The badgering is coming from RAR. And it's always been that way. The man simply doesn't take 'no' (or policy) for an answer. Hence, the reason why he has taxed the patience of many community members recently and in the past and the reason why this report was filed. As another already pointed out, his strategy seems to involve wearing editors down in order to get the article edited the way he wants it to be edited. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocks related to Neelix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Multiple accounts were blocked in January of this year because they were making edits to Neelix's articles, and I find what went down troubling, as there appeared to be considerable agreement that the edits made were not disruptive, that the edits made were valuable, there was no evidence of sockpuppetry, and I fail to see any harassment.

• January 4 Sockpuppet investigation
• January 15 Sockpuppet investigation
• ANI compaint

Involved:

• Neelix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ^{(added by Kelly)}
• Cirt (talk · contribs)

Blocked accounts:

• Yaktaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The The Fool on the Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BucketPI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklickerish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked by Neelix)

Accused sockpuppeter:

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

On January 4, Neelix opened an SPI complaining that he was "under attack" because his articles had been edited. He blocked user Dicklickerish for this edit claiming it was a vandalism-only account and a banned name, and added a protection template to his own article. He received criticism on his talk page over the block, was told to take off the protection template and promptly "retired." (goodbye cruel world!)

On January 14, Cirt opened another SPI. HJ Mitchell blocked Yaktaur and put on the SPI that the account was "clearly created with the sole purpose of making these edits." Aren't all accounts created with the sole purpose of making some edits? (Again, edits not disruptive.) Since Yaktaur was blocked so quickly after the account creation, it's not clear if it would have been an SPA. People pointed out they were good edits. PhilKnight reported accounts technically unrelated on January 17 and the SPI was closed.

On January 18, Cirt opened the ANI, "There's a serious case of Meatpuppetry going after Featured Article writer, editor Neelix, and unfortunately they've successfully driven him off Wikipedia entirely." (World's tiniest violin). Cirt also accused Johnnydowns of being a possible sockpuppet because the account had been dormant for some time before recent edits. Johnnydowns said feel free to run checkuser. Cirt responded, "This above comment by Johnnydowns seems like baiting and evidence supporting comment by Jehochman above that the meatpuppets know how to game the Checkuser system." (LOL what? Wouldn't we all suggest checkuser if being falsely accused of being a sock?). On January 18, Jehochman blocked BucketPI and HJ Mitchell blocked all the accused (but unblocked Johnnydowns and Cactusjackbangbang later).

The The Fool on the Hill had an account dating to 2007. BLOCKED. BucketPI made all of two edits, which consisted of adding a missing "the" and adding a CN needed tag. BLOCKED. Yaktaur tried to improve the Tara Teng article by editing it down and removing ridiculous detail about her that bloated the article to 70k. Cactusjackbangbang and Yakataur and a few others took off 50k+ of fawning, promotional, non-encyclopedic drivel. The only thing missing was the date of the woman's first glorious menstruation. All their edits were reverted by people simply because these editors had been accused of being socks, despite no action on either SPI! HJ Mitchell changed the article to "pp-protected" the article saying "I don't know what's going on here, but it's not beneficial to the development of the article." (orly) The article sat at 70k+ until its discovery on November 6, and it's taken at least a dozen editors hundreds of edits to get it to a reasonable 14k.

Cirt created the category Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cactusjackbangbang for the accused and IPs. There is NO evidence that Cactusjackbangbang was running a sockfarm and I feel this category should be deleted.

I would like to point out that even if the January edits were somehow coordinated, there is only penalty for disruptive edits, not beneficial ones. We have whole task forces and projects who coordinate their efforts to improve Wikipedia, so I don't see why we should block other groups who decide to improve an article that is a nightmare, whether they're from a class project or long-lost relatives of the subject or communicating via ESP. We should be thanking them, not blocking them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cirt is not an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cirt had his bit taken away by ArbCom. Kelly ^hi! 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I saw a bunch of administrator categories on profile but they're for other projects. Fixed so just says involved. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to hear from HJ Mitchell about this. I ran across these discussions when following the links from Tara Teng while I was cleaning up that mess. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• After looking at the Tara Teng article, I was wondering about Cactusjackbangbang who saw the problems with the article way back in January and tried to whittle down this bloated article but ended up getting a three month block for his troubles. I'm glad he was unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. Johnnydowns was editing another Neelix article, Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant (32K), also in January 2015. He ended up very briefly blocked by HJ Mitchell (lifted after a discussion at ANI) and the article received full protection for a month. I don't know the circumstances of these accounts editing down Neelix's articles in January, it was certainly a weird coincidence but it also looks like Johnnydowns was trying to cut the article down to a reasonable size. But it is a FA so that might have been seen as hostile. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, we'll see if HJ Mitchell has a good explanation but if not he should probably be added as a party to the Neelix arbitration case. Kelly ^hi! 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - it looks like BucketPI was blocked by Jehochman, not HJ Mitchell. That was a particularly bad block, two constructive edits and blocked for "harrassment" over two weeks after they made the edits.[64] That was clearly a punishment block for editing Neelix's article, not prevention. HJ's blocks of Yaktaur and The Fool on the Hill are still awful too though. Kelly ^hi! 01:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching that! —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry if that wasn't clear, these were multiple articles being edited, not just Tara Teng. Additionally, Johnnydowns had a link on his user page to his real website that was plain as day. He also signed his posts with his real name from the beginning so it really should have been suspect that he was a sock. He appears to be a perfectly respectable writer who has had multiple articles published in The New Yorker etc. and is a stickler for proper style. After his posts kept being reverted, he asked why on Neelix's talk page. Neelix reverted his message and did not respond! And then please see the hostile treatment Johnnydowns received when he brought it up on Talk:Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. WP is lucky that he has continued to edit this year IMO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are we rehashing events of many months ago? There was most likely good grounds for whatever happened back then. I don't remember the incident and am not inclined to research all the details once again just for the amusement of third parties. If any party wants to discuss with me something I did to them, their first stop should be my talk page, or email me, not WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It was just discovered due to the Neelix fallout and involves multiple admins. Your response here is not very encouraging... You blocked someone who made two edits so what research is required? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Because what it looks like here is that two sysops were using their tools on behalf of Neelix in a content dispute. Kelly ^hi! 02:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep at it, Kelly, this goes all the way to the top. This is why no admin will block Neelix and this is why arbcom is arguing for a three-month, do nothing grace period. They need time to get their stories straight. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's looking that way... I fully expect more to be uncovered. What a mess. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not helped by idiotic conspiracy theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a reasonable explanation as to why Neelix hasn't been desysopped and blocked? Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Only Arbcom can desysop in this case and they (rightly or wrongly) feel the need to cross their t's and dot their i's. Arbcom only moves quickly when bright-line rules are broken or is the danger of future abuse of the tools. As for blocking, anyone not baying for blood can read the threads and see there's no community consensus for a block right now. If you think a SPI from ten months ago figures into the equation then Conspiracy_theory#Epistemic_bias may be worth a read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools is not a bright-line rule? I can understand wanting to take time with an outright block, but it seems pretty clear there is no question he should be desysoped. That they refused to do so shows something is rotten. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please review the blue wall of silence to see what's really going on here. That Neil shows up to make the standard "you're all conspiracy theorists" allegation is from page 25, subsection 3 of Chapter 3, "How to deflect attention from bad admin behavior". Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not all conspiracy theorists. It's specifically your judgement I question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious, but your mind tricks have no effect on me. My judgment is perfectly sound: there is overwhelming evidence supporting an immediate desysopping and blocking of Neelix. That you and others continue to make excuse after excuse supporting the extremely poor judgment to avoid sanctioning Neelix for unambiguous bad behavior that throws the entire project into disrepute is the core problem. You can keep evading this by changing the subject and attacking me all you want, my judgment on this matter is supported by the facts. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree re:desysopping. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is. Lifting certain types of blocks is. Most of the rest of the stuff gets a case to sort out. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I also stumbled into this mess while trying to clean up Nellix articles. I concur these blocks show poor judgement. The involved Admins should join the cleanup as penitence.Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Lol, no going to happen. People are already flooding HJ's page to join Arbcom. the cabal remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.53 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You are correct, sir. The cabal will remain until enough people realize that the structure of the site is designed to disenfranchise editors and thrust them into a bureaucratic hierarchy so as to disempower their individual voices, all in favor of a single voice, the bellowing singularity of a single voice, the commanding authority of the cabal, run by nobody in particular, but worshipped by everyone in their subservience to control. The sad reality is that most people are afraid to think for themselves, so the cabal fills that void and gently tells them what to think. Most people prefer that to standing alone with the wind at their backs. If the cabal did not exist, it would be necessary to create it, as the Architect creates the illusion of the Matrix to pacify the frailty of the human mind. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that The Fool on the Hill has never been blocked. Dr. K. 03:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ooops, name is The The Fool on the Hill! Thanks for the catch. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• This matter was discussed at great length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix. I see nothing new in the current discussion. It was discovered that there was off wiki coordinated harassment of Neelix. The relevant accounts were blocked. I actually unblocked one user who mistakenly got swept up. Why are we back here? What administrative action is sought? Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-Wiki, Neelix was being ridiculed. Reasonably, considering. On-Wiki, people were trying to fix his messes and you and HJ stopped them. Your behaviour was clearly misguided then and nothing in the interval changes that. The curious should follow Softlavender's link just below. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman Being ridiculed and being harassed are not the same things. Since when is it harassment to improve someone's Wikipedia articles? You indeffed someone for making two edits that cannot in any way be seen as harassment or personal attacks[65] and cited an SPI investigation that determinde no evidence of sockpuppetry. It may have been "discussed at great length," but there was never any evidence whatsoever that this individual had violated any rules. Did you even look at the edits? This person's only "crime" was editing an article that "belonged" to an admin. This is extremely damaging and embarrassing to Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain when it is appropriate to ridicule an editor on Wikipedia. What you view as ridicule, others view as harassment. I blocked, as did HJ Mitchell, for meat puppetry and harassment. The CU tool does not detect meat puppetry. I did look at the edits. This matter was discussed at length and the actions were sustained, including my unblock of the legit editor. Softlavender's link is useful. Please come to my talk page if you would like further info. Jehochman ^Talk 11:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

When there is an editor acting like a legitimate fool/stalker/idiot/lunatic/liar/pervert/racist or whatever. These are the reasons I typically see ridicule thrown at Wiki editors and frankly they deserve it. If people on other websites or at local cafes want to ridicule Wikipedia editors, this is their right and good for them. That is not the same as harassment. I don't know where you live, but in the United States, freedom of speech is paramount. If you looked at these edits[66] and determined them to be disruptive and clearly harassment, then I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be an admin. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While there's nothing wrong with clarifying things on your talk page, I would gauge that this whole debacle is enough of a serious and public matter that you will be (and are) called to explain the situation publicly to the community at this point, so you might as well do it once. LjL (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• <sigh> I don't know why I have to keep posting this, but apparently I do: The full story and background: [67]. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup. Clearly a few thought it funny, while a few others were mortified enough for Tara Teng to put in all that time trying to fix her article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• I spent some more time looking at this, and I have to place the blame for this fiasco squarely on Cirt. I looked at Cirt's contribs from 13-18 January, and he was running around like a hyperactive maniac with his hair on fire, making posts in dozens of places (WikiProjects, AfD, SPI, dispute resolution boards, user talk pages, on and on) about how Neelix was under attack and his "quality" articles were being nominated for deletion or destroyed. Frankly Cirt was trying to whip up sockpuppet hysteria and seems to have succeeded to some extent. After looking at all of it, I honestly can't blame HJ Mitchell and Jehochman for thinking that where there was so much smoke, there must be fire. Kelly ^hi! 15:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fairly accurate. Cirt is energetic and passionate about Wikipedia. In the end I asked Cirt to step away because his commentary was exceeding everybody else. I should have been more skeptical that perhaps Neelix was in the wrong. Clearly, Neelix cause serious content problems and I am thankful to all of you who are correcting them. It's a lot of work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clear they listened to Cirt and did no due diligence to see if there was any actual disruption by all the accused. This is precisely the problem that needs to be addressed. At every step in this process, multiple editors pointed out repeatedly that there was no disruption and this was all about Neelix's ownership. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear as to what administrative action is actually required here, but I am okay in principle with unblocking 3 of the 4 accounts, provided the blocking admins are too, while the fourth, "Dicklickerish" I feel falls foul of Wikipedia:Username policy#Disruptive or offensive usernames so I'd give them a standard advice to go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. However, I think it would be something of a pyrrhic victory as I find it unlikely any of them would come back and edit Wikipedia again having been blocked for a significant amount of time, and frankly they could have socked to evade the block and we probably wouldn't notice. While I am supportive of the clean-up efforts (as I would be for any genuine drive to improve the encyclopedia, which this is), I do feel there's an element of this about it from some quarters - keep it focused on the content, not the editor who made it. In particular, there is no need to refer to a living woman's menstruation on an ANI thread, even if (as I assume) it was made in jest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• FYI HJ Mitchell has not yet responded. It does not appear he's been on here yet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• I looked at the SPI again a few days ago; it does not hurt to look at it again. I remember the incident though I didn't get involved, I think, with any actions--I think (the glories of old age) I was led to it either via an ANI thread or some article (something about the many, many critical responses to some play by some person Neelix was advocating--neither the responses nor the play were very notable), and remember being of two ways: there was seriously excessive content being added (I hate excessive content), and harassment of Neelix seemed to be going on. If excessive and/or incorrect blocks were handed out, they should be undone, of course, and flowers and chocolate sent--other consequences, if there need be other consequences, are probably not for this board, for right now, but do warrant discussion. I have just removed the SPI template from User:Yaktaur since socking was not proven in the SPI (no socking was proven); I don't know if we can tweak the block template (and certainly the block needs to be looked into, but it's late here). I'm looking at the others right now, and just removed the ones for Dicklickerish (bleh), BucketPI, and The The Fool etc. The blocks were issued by Jehochman and Harry; I understand Jehochman is now reconsidering what happened (I hope I read that correctly). Drmies (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Whatddayaknow: I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name. I suppose that's how I got clued in. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK. I'm looking at the accounts. I'm not going to bother with Dicklickerish since that's worthy of a user name block already. But BucketPI, I see no justification for the block; they're not even mentioned or discussed in the SPI, only listed as a possible sock. I see that Jehochman later unblocked Johnny (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix), but not this account; the block rationale mentions only the SPI, and while Cirt made an argument about the MO of some of the involved accounts (but Bucket didn't do the one-edit talk page thing), I don't see that listed as a block rationale nor is there anything on the talk page explaining the block. Jehochman, I am going to undo that block unless you have some evidence you can share with us that I haven't seen. Something similar applies to The The Fool on the Hill: Harry blocked them for being "part of some sort of harassment campaign/meatpuppetry" but there's no discussion of their edits in the SPI, let alone a block rationale, and they're not mentioned in the ANI thread I just linked (they were blocked two days before that ANI thread was started). Plus, that account dates back to 2007 and shows multiple edits in various places. Harry also blocked Yaktaur, based on the SPI but, again, there are no admins commenting on that account in the SPI. In short: I see three accounts who deserve to be unblocked, at least from my perspective; I await comments by Harry and Jehochman. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  I removed the {{ipsock}} templates that Cirt placed on a bunch of IPs claiming that they were socks of Cactusjackbangbang. There was never any evidence that this user was socking at all. Kelly ^hi! 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for action

• Since Ritchie is at a loss as what should be done, I propose the following.
  • Three of the accounts should be unblocked. (Personally, I would like to see the blocking admins issue an apology on their talk pages. They may or may not edit again and that's not the purpose - these were not all new accounts. I think this should be mandatory for bad blocks.)
  • Punitive action against the admins involved, if even a warning, is warranted. People were blocked for improving Wikipedia. Two admins were negligent by failing to confirm disruptive edits actually took place before they indeffed editors. I would like to point out that the info that Neelix was being discussed on the Hipinion forum was not posted to the ANI until after the blocks were done, and that multiple people pointed out several times that these were good edits.

There are many eyes on this and I hope people do the right thing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the actions of these adminstrators could be included in the Neelix case. It is strongly related, and arbcom is the authority for admin problems.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Riddle me this: You're an admin, you have a broad watchlist, you see an experienced editor posting in lots of different forums on your watchlist about problems on another editor's articles, you look into the situation some more, you find that a string of mostly new accounts have been excising large chunks of content from an article and some have been leaving threatening/harassing/mocking messages for the main editor of that article, you are unaware at this stage that this is the result of a discussion elsewhere on the web. What do you do? Whatever you do, how would you then feel nearly a year later (by which time you'd almost completely forgotten the incident and had to refer to the ANI archives to refresh your memory) if somebody who had never faced a dilemma like that was picking apart your decision with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight and rose-tinted spectacles and calling for "punitive action"? Remember when answering that admins are volunteers who have jobs, families, social lives, etc, and have to make decisions under pressure, knowing that they'll be criticised no matter what they do (or don't do). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I were an admin who had blocked people who made good edits, when I saw other people pointing out there are good edis, merely because "an experienced editor" was crying about being bullied, I would admit I made a mistake, apologize to the editor and Wikipedia community, support reversing the block and promise more vigilance in the future. What is so hard about that? Merely because it's 10 months later doesn't make a difference - in fact it makes what happened more clear. What I would not do: I would not complain that admins are unpaid volunteers with other things to do like everybody else on Wikipedia. I'm noting that this is your sole input to this ANI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's ten months later really does make a difference, since it's hard for people to recall exact details after so long (ie. there may have been additional reasons for the block that they no longer recall, since it seemed obvious enough at the time.) I think most of them should probably be unblocked, but demanding apologizes and the like for what seems to have been a simple error ten months after the fact seems a bit silly. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the mooting of forced apologies, baying for a pound of flesh, or threats of arbitration. It's real fun to use the retroscope to look at a situation and pretend that people before should have known then what is known now. Unfortunately we do our best with what's known at the time a decision is made, not what will be known in the future. I am fine with any admin unblocking any account that I blocked, should they feel it appropriate. Dicklickerish should remain blocked as a bad username. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not a forum for appreciation or flattery. We're looking at what was known at the time editors were indeffed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not again. Nobody needs to be punished. The way people and communities improve is through introspection, reflection and a wee bit of good will. Alakzi (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And don't forget lots and lots of denial. BMK (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No. LjL (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Denial it is. I think the best we have so far is one of the admis saying maybe he should have looked closer into the actual edits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This inquiry is useful as a reminder that admins should not be quick to block based on another editor's request that is not based in the editor conduct. But I'm not sure that is what happened here, I think these are blocks made in good faith and the one I mentioned, Johnnydowns, was almost immediately lifted. If any editor wants to add parties to the Neelix case, make a request to ArbCom. But I don't see that any admin action right now for blocks made in January is warranted and I think this complaint can be closed and discussion moved to presenting Evidence at the Neelix case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the decision here, I strongly recommend against unblocking these accounts. If these were constructive contributors, why haven't any of these accounts appealed their unjust blocks through the appropriate channels in the almost a year since they were wrongly blocked? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: That's a very insightful point, and got me to thinking. You might be right, but I can also imagine a different scenario. Virtually everyone in this discussion has years of experience with Wikipedia and a lot invested in it, and we may have forgotten what it was like at the beginning of our editing experience. However, I have occasionally, while poking around at different sites, found some site that I thought it might be interesting to contribute to. I signed up got a username, and made some contributions. At that early stage I wasn't invested in the site. If, after a couple posts, I got a strongly worded message letting me know I was blocked, my likely response at that point would be to say "screw this I've got better things to do". I don't know whether that happened in this situation but I think it is plausible.

Regarding apologies, I feel strongly they are not needed. While the actions in light of new information, look differently, if I try to place myself at the time of the request, I could easily see blocks being warranted. If any of them want to voluntarily provide a statement indicating that the block turned out to be unfortunate based on new information not available at the time, that might be helpful but I would fall short of requesting even that. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: As Sphilbrick has speculated, it's possible that no unblock requests have been filed because the users have not been told how to. While it's technically possible to get to Help:I have been blocked and figure out the instructions, newbies might be so upset / annoyed at being blocked that it's best to just give them all the options up-front. It's good practice to put a standard {{Uw-block}} template on a blocked editor, although if you're blocking an established user you should probably go for a personalised message (otherwise you run the risk of it being thrown back in your face on ANI for being patronising) and for somebody who has made a bunch of clear-cut vandalism edits and nothing else, I just follow WP:DENY and block without comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"If they aren't guilty why didn't they declare their innocence?" is a really obnoxious rationale for punishing someone. They didn't declare their guilt, either. There could be a hundred reasons why they said nothing after being blocked. LjL (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, I agree it's best practice for an admin to explain when blocking a user, except for the obvious WP:DENY situation. At least one of these accounts was 8 years old but none were exactly experienced users, and I don't know if they looked like obvious trolls to the blocking admin and I don't think it matters if they look that way now. I'm not sure if having left them a block notice would change the current situation. I suppose that if there's no reason to suspect ongoing disruption from these accounts then there's no particular reason to keep them blocked. I just don't see any reason why the block needs to be reversed, either. If the editors are gone and have been for almost a year, they're not coming back. Or they'll come back and create a new account anyway. Or they already have. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The default for a block that has no reason to be should be to be gone, not to stay "because it can't hurt". LjL (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean to imply that their silence implies guilt. Only that if the users behind these accounts aren't currently asking for their accounts to be unblocked, then there's no injustice to fix here. This is just a witchhunt to punish an administrator for an entirely justified (at the time) action which only seems less justified now because of circumstances that came to light long after the fact. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There is possibly an cost, a cost to the project as a whole.

"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
— Tim Simonite, Technology Review [68]

Of our five million articles, about a quarter million (222,000) are {{unreferenced}}, based on transclusion count [69]. The goal is to get people, lots of people, working hard, for free writing the encyclopedia. Per Sphilbrick, no reasonably intelligent, self-confident person who receives an incorrect "duck block" is going to waste their time on this place. The fact that a particular couple of admin's duck blocks are suddenly scrutinized due to the fall from grace of another is merely serendipity, not cause for pitchforks. Duck blocks are so routine these three and four are hardly notable. On the other it should be an opportunity for all Wikipedians to consider how they treat newcomers. NE Ent 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's review the facts of the situation. Take a look: [70] Was my action thoughtful or reactionary? I spent a lot of time looking at this matter and did one unblock and two blocks to try to stop the meat puppets while avoiding harm to legitimate editors. Do you think this edit our nicca dead (e.g. "our nigga" mistyped to evade the edit filters) was appropriate? Do you see why I blocked that account? Do you want editors running around here, even brand new editors, gloating about dead "niggas"? The other account User:BucketPI appeared to be another meat puppet because it was in the same place, doing the same things, as the other blocked accounts, and it appeared to be an experienced user initiating a new account. Maybe I was right; perhaps I was wrong. Nobody is perfect. In general, I am very nice to new editors, even when the next admin to come along isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That user was blocked for the same valid reason you want Dicklickerish to remain blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman, for your edit on User talk:BucketPI. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2015 (

Unblocks and blocks

1. I stand by my unblock of Johnnydowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the AN/I discussion at the time, linked somewhere above.
2. I stand by my block of User:Vegetablelasagna1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's one and only post was to Neelix's talk page: neelix gone. our nicca dead. Note: that "nicca" is "nigga" or "nigger" spelled in a non-standard way to avoid filtering.
3. Upon review, I cannot justify my block of BucketPI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If I had reason at the time, I failed to permanently record it. Therefore I have unblocked this account. Since it only had two edits, it is quite likely the user has moved on. What possibly happened is that I was looking at this bad edit [71], in context of this contribution history, and somehow got mixed up and blocked BucketIP who had made the edit immediately prior to the IP. The IP was listed on the sock puppet report, and it definitely should have been blocked for its own bad behavior, but wasn't. By now the issue is stale and there are no recent edits, so no action against the IP is needed.

If anybody remains unsatisfied, please visit my talk page and ask questions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Cirt admonished for canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Canvassing by Cirt was a problem raised in the ArbCom case that took his bit away and banned him from BLPs and social topics - see the evidence page. It's been raised here at ANI before and he's promised not to do it anymore.

When one of Neelix's articles was nominated for deletion, here are examples of the pages and forums he posted to:

1. Project pages - [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]
2. WikiProjects - [90][91][92][93][94][95][
3. User talk pages - [96][97][98][99][100]

The above was only for one article - 2012 tour of She Has a Name, which was ultimately redirected. He repeated all this behavior for Critical response to She Has a Name (also redirected) and Ron Wear. This is a blatant "spamming" violation of WP:CANVASS even if the wording is neutral.

Cirt also went to multiple forums to attack editors who were editing the above articles. The WP:SPI and ANI reports he created are linked above. He also warned and reported another editor for vandalism for good-faith edits[101][102], went to WP:RPP during a content dispute immediately after getting the page to his preferred version[103][104] made bad-faith accusations at WP:DRN[105] and made further sockpuppet accusations.[106] Also posted on the pages of multiple admins seeking a sympathetic one, including HJ Mitchell and Jehochman mentioned above, as well as Panyd.[107]

This is about as blatant case of canvassing and forum shopping as I've ever seen. All of this took place over a period of a few days. A little stale, yes, but Cirt has been warned about this behavior before and I'd like to see that they have some understanding this is unacceptable. Kelly ^hi! 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• SupportMy take having looked through much of te evidence while cleaning up some of the same issues Cirt was taking great pains to stop cleanup on, is that a warning is appropriate. He seems to suffer from the same advocacy desease Neelix has. He should join the cleanup. Also the SPi page about Cactusjackbangbang should be deleted (someone nom'd it I think). Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - but I would not trust him to help in the cleanup. His antics also do not excuse the admins who still feel they did nothing wrong despite blatant evidence, so once again I'm left to wonder why we have different standards for different editors. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Cirt - just say you were "emotionally drained" by all this, or some other such bullshit, and you'll get away with whatever bad things you may or may not have done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment How is this even remotely constructive almost 10 months later? Blackmane (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• STALE - I already told Cirt to drop this subject any move along, 9 months ago. Admonishing him this long after the incident is punitive, rather than preventative. Regardless of that, I also think that Cirt made a legitimate complaint because these were not new editors. They were new accounts, working together in violation of WP:MEAT to harass Neelix. Just because Neelix has become persona non gratis does not mean that he can be treated with disrespect, that he can be "ridiculed" until he is forced to leave Wikipedia. We don't work that way. While I might have given more leeway to these meat puppet accounts knowing then what I know now, I do not agree with the witch hunters who want to attack everything Neelix did or anybody remotely connected to Neelix. The discussion has been carried on far beyond its usefulness and should end. Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am wary of those who push towards hastily closing the matter while being called into cause as involved parties. LjL (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hastily? Yes, I am very tired of having to respond to assumptions of bad faith at AN/I when any concerned editor could have come to my talk page first. Nobody did. Those who enjoy stirring drama shouldn't be entertained. Jehochman ^Talk 01:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I must be losing my mind, because I agree with Jehochman. This is beyond stale, it's a desiccated mound of crust. Going after Cirt now makes about as much sense as going after George Lucas for Jar Jar Binks. Stick a fork in it, it's done. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose much too late. It's all over long ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is stale. Time to move on. QuackGuru (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with the above editors saying this is stale. Jusdafax 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

• If he feels an existing consensus violates WP:V, there is no need to seek a new consensus, he can just declare it invalid on the article talk page and edit against it.[108]
• If one of the editors involved in an existing consensus is less active in the article now, there is no need to seek a new consensus, he can just declare it invalid on the article talk page and edit against it.[109]
  

He makes disputed edits without consensus, using phrases such as "per talk" in his edit summaries. For him, "per talk" means "I explained my reasoning on the talk page, and there is no need to wait for consensus because my reasoning is so obviously correct." Classic disruptive behavior.
When I templated him for edit warring,[110] his reply was "Discuss it on the talk page".[111] No, I don't think article talk is for edit warring warnings, and edit warring is not something for discussion. This is typical of this user's misunderstanding of how things work here, and of his propensity for making up or distorting rules.
In return, he responded by templating me for edit warring,[112], despite the fact that I let his reverts stand precisely to avoid edit warring. He added the comment, "Please use the talk page to discuss your edits rather than simply claiming the existence of a consensus which does not currently exist.", despite the fact that I have pointed him to this existing consensus in the archives of article talk. I have provided this link once in an edit summary[113] and again in article talk.[114] He appears to believe that a consensus has to be rehashed and renewed periodically to remain in effect, but I'm not aware of any expiration clause in WP:CONSENSUS. He has also stated that a consensus was void because he was not present to participate in it, a gross misinterpretation/distortion of policy.
He seems to have a special interest in me in particular, and he researched my contribs going back a number of months, to find things that he could throw up in my face, use as weapons against me in disputes, etc. (I was User:Mandruss until I recently began editing logged out.) He posted two such comments on my talk page today alone.[115][116] I have no doubt that his sole intent was to irritate me. This behavior is something I have never done with another editor and I find it un-Wikipedian, very unseemly, and a little disturbing.
He has repeatedly posted comments on my talk page after I told him that his comments are not welcome there. I believe that is forbidden.
This is not about content dispute, although the user will no doubt try to divert it into a content discussion. It's about disruptive behavior, aggressive incompetence, and refusal or inability to collaborate in good faith. This has been going on too long and frankly I've had it with this person. I am at the limit of my patience but I do not wish to be driven away from this article by such a user.

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

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

I don't see any links showing edit warring, for which this is the wrong noticeboard anyway. The editor forgets to include the history; such as how he was blocked for edit warring,[117] and made personal attacks on me, apparently referring to me as an "aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editor".[118] As for the charge of being disruptive - I have improved the article more than any other editor in recent months. It is this editor who refuses to engage in productive discussion, insisting that a months-old agreement between two out of three editors forever binds future editors but not seeking any fresh consensus. He even asserts that the consensus can override WP policies, like WP:V, at Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose#‎No citations needed?. This complaint is without merit. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't alter your text after it there has been a reply.[119] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

For example - you refused to allow a citation request tag on some disputed text: [120][121][122][123], even deleting sourced text and replacing it with the unsourced text. Who finally added the citations? I did.[124] How disruptive of me! 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor accuses me of "making up" CONSENSUS rules, but I don't think he understands the policy himself. He seems to confuse finding consensus with holding a vote in which the majority rules regardless of the policy or content issues discussed.[125][126] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock

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

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

Challenge closure on Climate change denial talk page

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

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

And of course we're here... Earlier this year, climate change denial was expanded to cover "climate change skepticism" explicitly, and the relevant redirects were fixed. Reverts ensued, and discussion started at Talk:Climate change skeptic and a few other talk pages. Peter apparently wants the redirects pointed to an article which treats the topic more favorably (by not discussing it in detail), see edit summary. Peter refused to engage substantively in discussion (e.g.), but refused to let the redirects be changed ([127]). The dispute went to AE twice ([128], [129]), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly ([130], [131], [132], [133]...), and adjusted the wording based on input ([134]). Pete objected to the RfC, claiming we should instead go back to the stalled discussion he had refused to answer questions in. When the RfC expired, and no new comments had been generated for days, consensus appeared to me to be exceptionally clear, so I implemented the changes and archived the RfC, noting that formal closure was likely not necessary ([135]). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary ([136]). He didn't, and brought it here instead. I'm tired of this... I think enough editor time has been wasted on this nonsense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

For the record, Peter received a routine CC DS last March.[137] It is unclear to me if he has breached the DS or not, but if he has, he should be blocked. He's been at this for three years now. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• I don't think you are a neutral admin on this issue, but you do appear to have been at it longer than Peter.[138] Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neelix resigned

FYI, for those involved with/following the saga.[139] Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Commentary isn't needed

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

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

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

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

Side disussion closed by initiator
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with User:Legacypac's editing at User talk:Neelix. Is it really appropriate for someone to archive another user's page, and add a manual archive script? Neelix is a seasoned editor here but if I were to do that to a new editor's page, they may never know what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Legacypac's edits appear entirely reasonable and appropriate considering the community involvement and interest in transparency and fixing the problem. I can't for the life of me understand what your comfort level has to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC) How does auto-archiving discussions increase transparency? Those notices possibly aren't seen and discussions that we have now will likely be auto-archived before/if Neelix returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Confusing and obfuscating again, I see. I was specifically referring to the link to deletions added by Legacypac in the name of transparency. As for auto-archiving discussions, that's standard procedure. Anything else you want to complain about? Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC) I'm not trying to set up auto-archiving, I'm trying to set up one click archiving to reduce the cut and paste effort. The link at the top is SUPER helpful. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) I'm trying to save a lot of time for the many people who are cleaning up his mess (especially now that he is on a wikibreak and taking zero responsibility). I got really tired of scrolling down his talk page to manually cut and paste templates over to the ever growing delete page. Anyway the script is not working perfectly. Maybe someone with more experience can look at it? It needs to go to the deletions page but it goes to a new number 1 page. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Community involvement doesn't require the use of Neelix's talk page. The only reason would be if there's actual discussions with Neelix going on there and there aren't so why is there a need to use it for discussion? If it's a templating RFD notices issue, then that's something else but if Neelix comes back in six months or so, why should his entire talk page be archived based on your choices as to auto-archiving his talk page? The purposes of notices are that the person sees it, adding notices and then setting up a system of archiving them without their involvement seems like a bad precedent to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC) The talk page belongs to the community, not to Neelix, and in the name of transparency the link helps. I believe there is ample precedent for this. The fact that Neelix is still allowed to edit is the real problem, and you are doing a good job deflecting from it. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, I don't think Neelix should be editing. It should be treated as a prolific copyright violator scenario: if you aren't going to help solve these problems, you shouldn't be allowed to continue. The topic ban for redirects solved nothing but just left the work for others. As discussed before, Neelix will likely just return to Commons for a while or move on to something else but the problems remain. If Neelix truly understood that the redirects were a problem, then Neelix can help fix them. If this is just avoidance, well it would look like it does right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Go read the notice on his talk page about placing notices on the delete page please. My efforts are only to make this process easier. He already has a 23 page archive and assorted subpages to his talk page. No one is hiding anything from him here. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Are you talking about User talk:Neelix/deletions which you created? You created a deletions page and then put up a notice on the talk page as justification for the deletion notices page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC) What's wrong with that? What am I missing? It keeps all those unsightly notices (which, I suppose, are required to be sent by policy) out of the main talk page, which Neelix is unlikely to clean up now that he's on break. LjL (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) What is Wrong is that Ricky has not even looked at what is happening since SarahSV (not me, an admin) created User talk:Neelix/deletions and posted for everyone to use it. When User talk:Neelix/deletions quickly swelled past 70+ templates and was getting hard to add stuff too (scroll way down and paste in), I set up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neelix/deletions/Archive_1 which has 50 templates on it already. We need a system to track this stuff, including what has been dealt with and what is still being discussed or waiting for action. Note that one template often represents dozens and in one case 399 different redirects. The people involved all seem happy with the little system we have cobbled together. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Honestly, maybe you could just skip on sending the warning templates, per WP:BURO. Neelix isn't likely to see them (he's on a break), and even if he saw them, he has basically agreed to let the community delete whatever redirects they want to delete, and he doesn't practically have much choice on the matter either. If all that following the procedure will cause here is that people complain, without any actual advantage, maybe it's not worth it. LjL (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Ricky81682, the problem is that Twinkle was notifying Neelix on his talk page of every deletion discussion, and it seemed to me that this was unkind and overwhelming. So I moved the templates to User talk:Neelix/deletions, and posted a note on his talk page asking people to post deletion templates there in future. The subpage has become long enough that Legacypac wanted to set up auto-archiving, which seems reasonable. SarahSV (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) I'll drop it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I for one am sorry that ArbCom dropped the case (another consequence of that poor choice of original case title/focus, "Inappropriate redirects"). The redirects Neelix crated were and are the very least of the problems with his edits. It's going to take years to clean out the non-redirect problems he has created through the encyclopedia. The 80,000 redirects are just a red herring a smokescreen for the real problems. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Caidin-Johnson

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

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

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

Anon 109.67.134.193

Resolved

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

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

user ohnoitsjamie

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user is an admin but they are saying mean things on talk pages and its disturbing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:43F4:3ABB:1234:8479:FA1F:E764:927C (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC) This appears to be the blocked vandal and sockpuppeteer, Paleontologist99, who has been a bit troublesome recently. I don't endorse blocking ohnoitsjamie, as he's been helping deal with the troublesome user. --Yamla (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brewcrewer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was editing History of the Jews in Jordan and suddenly User:Brewcrewer shows up, places 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' template on the article's talk page [140] and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR [141]. First of all, the article is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, its talking about History of Jews in Jordan. And when I tried to tell him so on his talk page User talk:Brewcrewer#Hi he gave a short irrelevant response and refused any discussion. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lembrazza and categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cristina Vee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

I tried that, and it was swiftly removed with the comment [142] "Why, you seem like one of hundreds of users that is against the idea of using Facebook, twitter and Youtube as actual reliable sources!!" so maybe an Admin wants to look into this. I've notified the involved editor of this discussion on her talk, and suggest that this [143] part of her talk page provides background. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constant BRD violations and blankings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ciphers00 keep ignoring BRD on every article the user is involved. On Paul the Apostle, the user introduced undiscussed and controversial changes [144] that three two different users reverted, but Cipher00 just reverts back, ignoring BRD and claiming no discussion is needed [145], [146]. Despite having been warned for their behavior at Muhammad already, Ciphers also perform undiscussed changes there, again ignoring BRD [147], [148]. And same thing at Al-Qibli Chapel, where it's not just BRD but rampant vandalism as the Ciphers repeatedly deletes all tags from "his" article [149], [150]. This is a user from whom policies mean nothing. By gaming the system to avoid obvious 3RR-violations, Ciphers still ignore BRD on every article to make sure that unless others resort to edit warring, it's his version that carries the day. Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ciphers00:, not responding to your demands right away is not "a failure". Yes, I claimed that three users reverted your version. That was a mistake, turns out it was only two. My apologies for that, though it changes nothing about your problematic behavior across multiple articles. First 66.114.14.54 [151], then I [152], and thirdly Lindert [153]. That makes three users, so I was perfectly right. Will you know apologize for all the accusations and WP:NPA violations about me "fabricating" making "false accusations? Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment In addition to the edit warring, WP:NPA violations and repeated removals of tags, now Ciphers00 also deleted my support, three times in a row here on ANI(!) for the topic ban.[154], [155], [156] Vandalizing and edit warring on ANI, even further evidence of the problem behavior of the user. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) A while ago already I recognized the IP did not revert Ciphers00, struck it, and changed it to saying two users reverted [157]. That is not an excuse for Ciphers00 vandalizing ANI three times by removing comments about themselves. That you really think it's up to you to decide where this discussion goes "I see no reason to go any where else" and believing you can decide who gets to post on ANI really says it all. Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Alternate proposal

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borderline threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From a paid editor User:Mnoar are being made on my talk page here [158]. Happy to send the confirmation of the amount this person is paid by the company in question to any admin who pings me. It is available on https://projects.propublica.org/

Likely the page could use protecting aswell Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question lost any moral high ground by saying "How would the ethics panel at your University regard this type of baseless false accusation and supercilious behavior? I am betting that you have crossed a line here ethically. Want to find out?" That's a personal threat akin to a legal threat, and it cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned it was well past borderline; Bugs, you are absolutely correct--thank you. Also, I am against betting on religious grounds; "betting and wagering of any kind are not permitted in the happy place". I have thus indef-blocked the editor and I think Doc should, just to dot the i's, start an SPI and ask for a quick CU. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kudpung

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While perusing the questions and answers for the arbcom candidates, I noticed an unusual amount of uncivil behavior and personal attacks coming from administrator Kudpung.[159] The more egregious of the attacks were directed towards two users, Smallbones,[160] and Leaky caldron.[161] After realizing with some horror that this person was not only an admin but actually running for arbcom, I made my way to their talk page to let them know what I had found, asking them calmly to change their approach.[162] Instead of acknowledging my concerns and vowing to improve, Kudpung then launched into more personal attacks, blaming the editors questioning him for causing him to attack them and calling my request for civility a personal attack and incivility in itself, followed by a separate attack and veiled threat to block me in the future on my talk page.[163]. Because Kudpung is not receptive to repeated requests to stop the incivility and personal attacks against multiple users (Leaky caldron tried as well), and because Kudpung personally retaliates against editors, I'm requesting community input on Kudpung's fitness as an editor, admin and arbcom candidate, and his failure to uphold and follow basic civility and refrain from personal attacks after being asked to stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't been asked to stop. In fact others persit in having the last word and requiring further answers. In spite of attempts to brand me as a pederast and a mysoginist, the most poignant statement I made anywhere was: If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin. Take note, and be honest Viriditas, point everyone to the PA you left on my talk page and the reply from me which you hastily removed from your talk page, because that's all I have to say here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Viriditas: Campaign statements do not belong at ANI—please don't be so transparent. The numerous links in the OP show Kudpung is not tugging his forelock while answering questions, but that's it. I agree the last diff shows an unwise comment, but it's not a matter for ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, some entertaining Q/A have been posted. The question about "Grammar Badguy" might have been this. That's pretty outrageous! I suppose it's good to test how candidates react to inappropriate poking? Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• It seems to me that these are hustings in an election. If a candidate expresses themselves in a manner that a voter feels to be inappropriate then the option is to oppose them, by either standing in the election themselves or by lodging an "oppose" vote, or both. Hustings in real life often have strongly held opinions expressed with vigour. The difference, the only real difference, with real life and Wikipedia is that the hustings here are recorded for posterity. I don't see this as material for this forum. The remedy for the editor complaining and any other editor is available in the ballot box. Fiddle Faddle 15:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• (EC)I have to agree with @Johnuniq: on this. This is not an issue for ANI to deal with. I'd guess the only place to take it would be to the election committee (but I don't see the need), and ultimately the voters will decide.
• That said, I will explain my questions.The first is designed to bring out the candidates views on the bullying of women editors (especially) and in that sense is fairly pointed, which I think is fair in the context of an election. @Kudpung:'s answer, with his "citation needed" and strong suggestion that we don't have policies dealing with bullying, seemed to deny that there is a problem, that the Atlantic article was the only time this problem had ever arisen. So I provided the requested citations. I regret using the word "ignorant" in the question "Is it possible that you were just ignorant of the problem?" - when I could have used "unaware." Sorry. That's all I can see here. Please let the voters decide, and somebody should close this thread IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a member of the electoral commission, I am inclined to decline any involvement. If anyone wants a definitive answer they would have to ask the full commission for a ruling, but I predict that the answer will be "decline". Addressing civility issues in questions is not in our mandate. Problems of this nature should be dealt with at ANI, as this was (and I agree with the close). I would ask that ANI regulars keep an eye out for subtle canvassing using ANI or AN reports and discourage such behavior where appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean on the order of: "<redacted> and <redacted> are idiots, but <redacted> is great and should be elected?" Subtle stuff like that? BMK (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed boomerang indef for Viriditas User clearly engages in vexatious smear campaigns that are at odds with the values of Wikipedia. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The above editor is an obvious sock: account just created, has only edited on AN/I. BMK (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

And is now indef blocked. BMK (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Users EEng and Ricky81682

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

People might have noticed that there has been a bit of a war going on regarding longevity related articles for quite a while now. Usually the same people (EEng, CommanderLinx, Canadian_Paul and Ricky81682) nominate articles about validated supercentenarians for deletion and then join up to all vote "Delete" to support the subjects of the articles "not being notable enough" because they believe that "longevity does not warrant notability". This has been going on since at least May this year and has resulted in the deletion of numerous longevity related articles. Furthermore, the anti-supercentenarian crew has suggested that there is no need for age validation and that unvalidated data should be mixed with validated data. The terms "validated and verified" stems from the ages of the people in the articles having been deemed reliable by organisations such as the International Database of Longevity (IDL) or the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). The nominators have suggested that neither the IDL or GRG are reliable enough. There have been votes regarding this and the result was that the GRG's Table E was reliable, but not the GRG's Table EE. EEng and Ricky81682 appear to have forgotten what these terms mean as of late since they keep asking what they actually refer to. They nominated several well-sourced articles about people who were the oldest, or close to, living people on earth for deletion suggesting that they are not "notable enough". Recently they have also started disrespecting the subjects of these articles by saying things such as:

"Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal."(EEng),

""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"???" (EEng) and

"Oldest in Louisiana... really? Why not the oldest in Rhode Island? Are we to have fifty simultaneous articles about the oldest person in each US state, and hundreds of others about deceased formerly-oldests? And of course the territories and possessions! What about Wales, Scotland, England? Essex, Surrey, Kent? Bavaria, Tuscany? Each Swiss canton? The states of India? Pedestrian details of an unremarkable, and unremarked, life. NOPAGE. (EEng), "Please don't ask that question. You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." (Ricky81682), "I've performed the anti-jinx ritual." (EEng).

I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned above.

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by EEng:

• "Born-worked-married-died, plus (if you can believe it) "Ray followed, as much as possible, the Boston Red Sox baseball team. After watching baseball games, she often had cake and ice cream. At her 108th birthday celebration, she was greeted with the song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and a cake with the Red Sox symbol on it. Ray continued to buy Red Sox merchandise, and commented that she intended to continue doing so." The followup statement that a completely unrelated old person, Fred Hale, "who lived to be 113 years 354 days old, was also a fan of the team", borders on self-parody.", Source
• "Most of the article recounts the Keystone-cops confusion over who's oldest that year or whatever.", Source
• "Three people mentioned in these articles died while I was reading your long post.", Source
• ""The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time". Definitely the kind of detail our readers want and need. NOPAGE.", Source
• "Almost half of the article is about the mechanics and trivia of verification, plus the fascinating fact that she and her husband were interviewed together for the 1920 census. Wow! The rest is pedestrian details of everyone's life: born, married, worked, died.", Source
• "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal", Source
• "Long article packed with pedestrian life details ('One time she had lunch with the Salvation Army. "I like that, they're friendly," Carroll said.').", Source
• "And the fanboys say we don't have open minds!", Source
• "Apparently nonnotable (I could find no sources other than the single one in the article) and her life was utterly pedestrian i.e. there's nothing worth saying about her in the article, other than that she lived a long time.", Source
• "Born, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, lived, died. WP:NOPAGE, and anyway apparently one source.", Source
• ""the fourth-oldest person in the United States and the seventh-oldest in the world for little over a month" -- imagine, a whole month. "Even as her hearing and vision failed, friends said Shull didn't mind visitors and liked to clutch their hands while she talked" -- oh for Pete's sake.", Source
• ""at her death probably the oldest living New Englander" -- WTF, "probably"??? Other than born-married-worked-died, the only thing the article actually says about her is, "She was also a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, and the staff of the nursing home where she lived reported her delight at the team winning the 2004 World Series." Fascinating." Source

Evidence of recent disrespectful behaviour by Ricky81682:

• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means)", Source
• "Individual who was the world's second oldest "verified" person (whatever verified means) is not sufficient for notability.", Source
• "You may jinx us with a flood of people who support that question affirmatively in all seriousness." , Source
• "Person who was the oldest person ever recorded born in Prince Edward Island, the fourth-oldest person ever born in Canada, and ultimately the oldest American ever (and second oldest in the world) is full of cruft about these "titles", not actually notable and per WP:NOPAGE should be deleted.", Source
• "Now we need a succession box for that.", Source
• "It seems like Sanborn was merely a pretender to the claim of being the oldest living person..", Source
• "This kind of name-calling is evidence that a topic ban is necessary." (Regarding me calling him a troll by nominating an unsourced article about an unverified claimant and then withdrawing the nomination based on the premise that there might be sources.), Source

There are several more examples of this kind of behaviour from both users, but this should be enough to give people the general picture. Sincerely, 930310 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Having looked at several of the articles they commented on, I see zero GNG justifying a whole article on these long lived by deceased people. So maybe less pointy or less attempts at humor but they make some good points. Appearently writing articles on long living but othewise unremarable people is a thing like writing articles about college girls that play princess dress up for a weekend. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment Interest in human longevity has existed for several millennia (as we can see with Biblical claims such as Methuselah). The book of Guinness World Records began listing the World's Oldest People in its early editions. People that claim long lifespans are well-featured in the media for several centuries. "College girls playing princess dress up for a weekend" is not comparable to this since it's: 1. Relatively new, 2. Likely not featured in any major scientific journals (such as the National Geographic) and 3. Not really remarkable. 930310 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The afd statistics shows EEng's deletion !votes line up with consensus 84% of the time. Ricky's !votes line up with consensus 67.6% of the time. You show only 8 !votes, and a rate of 62.5%. You haven't made much of a case for topic-banning more active editors who appear better-tuned to consensus than you've been. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment If you read the post you will see why EEng and Ricky have a high line up with consensus. If a group of five or so users "gang up" and start attacking articles, everyone adding their own "Delete"-nomination it is pretty obvious that they are going to have several AfD's that line up with what they vote for. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment From what I read of this complaint there is no issue here other than the OP does not like sarcastic !votes. I agree on the general principle that age does not confer notability and have !voted that way on AfD's. I have also seen many of these arguments by editors who want to twist our notability criteria to turn Wikipedia into some kind of directory of non-notable old people – and they are dogged in that pursuit. Sooner or later this is going to end up at ArbCom and then those poor folk are going to need to sort through this. Jbh^Talk 16:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's already been to ArbCom which ruled (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#WikiProject World's Oldest People urged, 2011):

4) WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.

That didn't happen, and so here we are... again. Same shit, different day. EEng (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a relevant thread considering your behaviour on these AfD's. If you hadn't made remarks, such as the ones I quoted above, then this discussion wouldn't have happened. 930310 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not dead, merely dreaming!

Comment So you think it is ok for these users to disrespect the deceased? There is something on Wikipedia called "Etiquette", which clearly says that users should follow The Golden Rule and be polite. Comments such as "Delete and redirect to List of people who eat oatmeal" are clearly not polite or respectful. 930310 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My read is they are disrespecting the inanity of writing "biographies" on people who have done nothing but live a long time. The comments are certainly not what I would call proper but that is not what you are complaining about in your post, not is what you have presented anywhere near bad enough for a topic ban. You are asking for a topic ban on people who disagree with you at AfD – that is not OK. If many people watch AfD for topics they do not feel pass GNG and consistently vote on it that is not "ganging up". Several Wikiprojects have 'Article alerts' to notify people of happenings on articles the project is interested in and then go !vote on them. That is not "ganging up" - that is the emergence of consensus among editors who are interested in the topic. Jbh^Talk 17:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not asking for a topic ban of them because I disagree with them. I am asking this because their language is inappropriate and that there is clear evidence that they are "ganging up". If they hadn't been ganging up then they wouldn't both have participated in such a high amount of AfD's regarding the same topics. 930310 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Two editors participating in the same types of AFDs is not evidence of them ganging up. There are many reasons they might both show up at the same types of AFDs and most of them are not nefarious. -- GB fan 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There are more than two. I mentioned four in the topic and that makes a group. 930310 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right you did mention four, I forgot about that when I wrote that response. I still do not see any evidence that they are ganging up. Looking at their contributions they are all active in this area just like the editors that are showing up to say keep. Are you "ganging" up with the editors that are all saying keep? -- GB fan 20:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Before I comment, full disclosure that I came here via a comment on my talk page from EEng notifying me that I was involved in this ANI discussion, which is somewhat odd. I've participated in these AfDs recently, though, so I can somewhat see how I could be construed to be involved. Either way, thought it was worth noting. This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence those who oppose the use of Wikipedia as a web host and advertising platform for the GNG, full stop. There is no factual basis to conclude that EEng or Ricky have been "disrespecting the dead" or whatever the actual complaint is here. They are merely questioning the notability of these individuals and the support for facts in these articles. That's obviously a valid goal in an AfD, as those are questions that must be answered to determine whether the article should remain. Longevity is an area where there is a history much longer than my time on site of contention and undue influence from the GNG, which seemingly sends legions of their employees and affiliates to promote articles on non-notable topics. One needs only to read through the longevity wikiproject's talk page and archives to see a history of disregard for policy, guidelines, and consensus. This is an area where discretionary sanctions are active. I recommend in the strongest possible terms that this issue is punted on to the Arbitration Committee. If those involved in longevity discussions truly believe EEng and Ricky are being disruptive, arbitration is the appropriate venue to take that up, as it has been consistently shown that ANI can not effectively handle longevity issues. Fortunately, arbitration is shielded from those with vested interests in promoting these topics, and can yield a fair decision, whatever that is. I would suspect a very swift boomerang if arbitration was actually filed for. ~ Rob^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment The lines "This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence those who oppose the use of Wikipedia as a web host and advertising platform for the GNG, full stop. There is no factual basis to conclude that EEng or Ricky have been "disrespecting the dead" or whatever the actual complaint is here." are utter nonsense. I am not saying in any way that we should keep every longevity-related article on this Wikipedia. I am saying that the language used by EEng and Ricky is highly disrespectful. It would be good if people that haven't voted in the AfD's could give their opinions regarding this. Right now all the commentators, except me that is, are the people who have voted "Delete" in the AfD's that I am referring to. 930310 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because almost all those !voting Keep are part of the SPA "gang" (to use your word) that infests all these AfDs, and they're embarrassed, I'm guessing, to show their faces here. Here's a bunch of these birds-of-a-feather flocking together: WP:Articles for deletion/Anna Eliza Williams. EEng (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I welcome additional comments by outside parties. I see absolutely nothing in Ricky's comments that are anything but perfectly respectful. They're merely dissenting viewpoints. EEng has a habit of injecting humor into his comments, which is hardly an issue for ANI. I don't see any of the humor as particularly objectionable. Again, the unifying thing about all comments presented as "evidence" of disrespect is that they do not support the viewpoint that the GNG should have the final say on who warrants an article. ~ Rob^Talk 19:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything here that would be cause to ban either of the two editors from commenting on AFDs. The comments given as evidence of disrespecting the deceased to me do not show that. The comments are discussing the status of the article not the people. In some cases they do discuss the people but only to point out that the people are not known for anything other than being long lived and that there is not enough to meet our notability guidelines. Most of the articles I looked at show that the people lived long uneventful lives. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not enough that they should have an article. -- GB fan 19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• EEng, I have some advice for you and others in your situation, which I wrote up as an essay at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • While that certainly is a good bit of advice, it has already been followed here. This is a case where there is significant evidence that an organization is establishing their own "local" consensus on longevity and pushing that despite routinely losing when non-SPAs are introduced into discussions (at the NPOV noticeboard, RS noticeboard, ANI, arbitration, etc. - really every venue that could possibly apply). There is a history of attempting to blatantly disregard consensus in a discussion that doesn't go their way, including in this particularly egregious example. These issues have been brought up at all appropriate venues, including arbitration, but there remains issues. There's really nothing left to do but to implement our notability guidelines AfD by AfD. I'm sure those involved with longevity organizations, and particularly the GNG, will continue to try to uncover a venue where they can either remove those disagreeing with them from the conversation (as is being done here) or get what they want. And what they seem to want is to create a host of unencyclopedic articles that prominently advertise GNG as the only reliable source in this area. ~ Rob^Talk 19:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Bestow Lifetime Achievement Awards on EEng and Ricky for their entertaining prose. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

<bows, acknowledges applause> We'd like to thank the ANI Academy, our fellow members of the anti-supercentenarian crew which 930310 has so cunningly unmasked, and all the ANI "little people" who made this possible. We are unworthy! EEng (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Sour grapes will be served at The Museums all month. And now, to announce our next award … here's Martinevans123! EEng (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• With all due respect, OP, "born, lived, lived, lived...lived, lived, died" is not an example of disrespect, but of accuracy. 99% of the time, notability is pinned on the fact that they died over the age of 100. And while that usually merits mention in the local newspaper, these individuals are the quintessential argument for "newsworthy is not noteworthy"; these people are not something anything approaching a serious encyclopedia should be covering. EEng and Ricky's sarcasm is well placed here. Resolute 19:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, we use not just … sarcasm, but all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. EEng (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some more help nailing down the "keep every article on someone who only kicks off after they hit an arbitrary age" crowd would be much appreciated, there's a history a mile long of off-wiki collusion among the GRG acolytes and it's enormously tiring to see this trotted out yet again. This looks depressingly similar to the current situation, excepting the different names and the slightly less grandiose and pompous shrieking about expertise. Since having a pulse doesn't seem to be a criterion for passing the notability guidelines, and doesn't look to be one in the near future, until more people step in and do said nailing down this will just keep happening. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure where my comments are objectionable. My main issue is the bizarre argument that some fact are "verified" (namely their age and their "ranking") based entirely on a single organization which claims to be the "truth" about whether or not someone's age is accurate (with no one actually providing a link to the alleged truth), regardless of everything else we have. This is nonsense WP:OR I've been fighting for months here. We finished an RFC stating that "no, we won't put the GRG as a super-reliable source" source and yet there is a strange categorization that exists here where some age claims are treated as "valid" and listed as true (including the longevity tables), some are dumped to longevity claims without further discussions, some are left at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians or Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases as a storehouse for off-wiki use by this project and some (Vera Wagner at the moment) that even with multiple reliable sources are being wiped out and ignored without discussion. There have been RFCs on getting us to at least only claims that the GRG has approved of. Succession boxes are the current argument at WPT:WOP. I think there's a WP:BOOMERANG issue here: User:930310's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Pereira were not particularly helpful nor productive and starting out by calling it "trolling" is far from civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Plus I suspect EEng is similarly watching Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts like I am. Both of us will review and revise our views if sources do appear and are researching these articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominga Velasco which was kept because of her separate notability). A review of the history will show that the deletions were more commonplace and there before the flood of keep votes have been coming in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• And why did these Keeps start rolling in? Because of the same offwiki canvassing that's been going on in this topic area for literally a decade. Here's an example http://z3 DOT invisionfree DOT com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=6160&st=45 (site in on blacklist so you'll have to manually fix the DOTs) which somehow failed to get secreted behind "The 110 Club's" curtain of secrecy, but there're undoubtedly more recent ones not publicly visible:

"110 Club" canvassing for meatpuppets at AfDs

(Curious member @ Jun 3 2015) The article is being considered for deletion. (Waenceslaus @ Jun 3 2015) … If you could vote for "keep", I would appreciate. (Curious member @ Jun 4 2015) How to vote for keep? (Waenceslaus @ Jun 4 2015) Now it's too late. The article has been deleted. However, if in the future such situation shall occur, enter the the discussion page for an article nominated for deletion just like this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Farrell Then press "Edit" in the right upper corner and the try to use some reasonable arguments at the bottom of talk page. (ryoung122 @ Jun 4 2015) It doesn't have to be over. You could take this to deletion review, particularly in light of: 1. More votes to "keep" 2. Spartaz seems to be a partial, not an impartial, arbitrator when it comes to these supercentenarian AFD's.

To see the effect of such canvassing, click here: WP:Articles for deletion/Ethel Farrell.

EEng (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that User:Waenceslaus here (presumably the same person) is topic banned from the subject here and User:Ryoung122 was blocked here by Arbcom and has a significant COI here. This is no accidental meatpuppetry going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• While sarcastic, nothing in the diffs seems to be disrespecting the specific persons of the articles, but simply being critical of the type of puffed-up writing that comes from human interest stories and writing in mainstream extending onto an encyclopedia. They could be less callous in their approach but as others have noted, both EEng and Ricky have appeared to have community consensus behind nominating these for deletion. I would suggest that one should maintain a list article of the oldest living people which these can be salvaged into, which keeps what is sourcable information but avoids getting into minuscule details about a person who is otherwise non-notable for anything else they've done. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a middle ground argued in large part by EEng (based on WP:NOPAGE) resulting in mini-biographies at pages like List of supercentenarians from the United States and List of Japanese supercentenarians. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems completely fair, though I would even argue further that you can leave open a last column on each table for a very short one-two sentence bio. Some of the prose is a bit flowerly ("so and so died and survived by their x children, x grandchildren, etc." is not really helpful for a non-notable person) and if you trim it to more interesting points. For example, just pulling one example "Walter H. Seward" could be summarized as a Harvard grad that practiced law until his 90s. But in any case this is a fair way to keep the info. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I said pretty much that years ago:

if there's something really worth saying about the person which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables e.g. "Fred Flintstone, a WWI veteran[1] and lifelong stamp collector,[2] hang-gliding at 108".

EEng (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, disrespect for the dead is something only the living worry about. When you're dead, disrespect is going to be the least of your problems. That being said, there is nothing in the diffs that suggest any sort of disrespect for the dead. Merely sardonic humour directed at the ridiculousness of having articles that talk about people who literally were born, lived a much longer time than others, then died. When did Wikipedia turn into a memorial? Blackmane (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not really seeing an issue here. I find must of the comments funny and I offer my kudos to them for keeping their sense of humor considering the all of the tendentiousness the WOP articles bring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, "disrespecting the dead" is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. I guess the closest thing would be edits which violate the BLP policy for those recently dead people covered by it -so unless someone has evidence of a BLP violation of that sort, I suggest that this discussion be closed. BMK (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen some talk of a boomerang here. In my view, there's genuine poetry if this became not a formal boomerang, but rather a community reaction to what they've learned here. If everyone whose commented here, whether in agreement with the OP or not would go to the WOP wikiproject home page and subscribe to the article alerts, a wider cross-section of the community can weigh in on these AfD's, pro or con. That's got to be better than the status quo.David in DC (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Indeed David in DC is right. If everyone commenting here would watchlist WP:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Article_alerts, and would participate in just one AfD per day, this nonsense would be permanently over. EEng (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian Redban (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

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

There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- TheShadowCrow did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see [164]). There's no way of immediately telling if the two users are the same; one of the things T13 was banned for is socking, but that doesn't mean this was a sock account. Bbb23 and/or DeltaQuad should have an opinion on this and/or know what to do. In terms of any usable content, the consensus on two separate MfDs was to retain the content [165]. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The pages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio on Radosław Sikorski

IP 203.184.61.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and user Mahitahi359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) paste on page Radosław Sikorski the copyrighted text [166] [167] [168]. Source, from which it was copied: http://www.lcnewsgroup.com/radoslaw-sikorski-on-tape-plot-to-impose-russian-coal-ban-for-oligarchs-profit-confiscate-and-resell-gazprom-gas/

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

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

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

The editor in question - or what I'm assuming is their newly created account - has also violated 3RR on the article [169], [170], [171], [172]. So you got the classic trifecta of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am bringing a recent interaction with Rationalobserver (RO) (notified) here for discussion. During the interaction RO made personal attacks, assumed bad faith, attempted to further stir the pot by trying to drag other editors in, and made baseless claims against me of unethical behavior based on no supporting evidence whatsoever. Despite editors (other than me) questioning the foundation for her claims, she continued to behave in an aggressive and uncivil manner. Rationalobserver has had personal attacks removed in the past [173], posts with the potential for outing [174], and was also here on 12 Oct 2015 (but I cannot say why, there are no diffs as they all appear to have been suppressed). She was given an “only warning” [175] for a personal attack on 1 Nov 2015.

In a discussion thread regarding the use of OTRS images in the Wikicup[176], she asked a series of questions to which I openly responded [177], and in detail [178]. A somewhat bizarre question about payment regarding the creation of currency images [179] led me to cautiously ask about the relevance [180]. The next reply included accusations, scenarios of people being stripped of awards, questions of "double dipping", and pinging all active and one former judge[181]. I told her that up to that point, I would have been happy to answer her questions[182]. With assumptions spiraling out of control, RO insinuated [183], inferred [184], and finally accused me of unethical behavior [185]. To further stir the pot, she pinged the contest's runner up looking for support [186].

I responded pointing her to information on my user page that would have answered several of her questions and perhaps prevented a reasonable person from flying off the handle and that further unfounded accusations would result in an ANI case[187]. Her follow-up response demonstrated no insight whatsoever as she simply changed the direction of her attack [188]. This was followed a seemingly conditional apology on my talk page[189], additional blame directed at me[190] and striking of some (but not all) accusations[191]. More jabs[192], followed by her discussing a file with my real name as photographer in comparison with the numismatic images where I do not use my name[193]. In the same edit she tries to back out of the whole discussion, and was called out for doing so[194]. I responded that she and I had a date at ANI[195] due to all of the above, but the final straw was her pulling links/an easy connection to my real name into a rant about my alleged lack of ethics[196].

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

I made no personal attacks or unfounded accusations, but I did make the mistake of assuming after Godot refused to answer the question of whether he was being paid to create images he later claimed for Wikicup points. Immediately after he denied getting paid I did strike all comments there that made assumptions ([197]). I was merely trying to understand why so many of Godot's Wikicup submissions are credited to a business, not an individual. The charge of outing is absurd, as Godot put his name on files he submitted, and he's mentioned several times in this report that his real name is found in some of his image summaries. He put the info onWiki, not me, and I only mentioned it because another editor suggested I shouldn't ask Godot what his profession is ([198]), but alas Godot has freely disclosed that info at his user page, and I didn't ask what his profession was; I asked if he had been financially compensated for images he submitted.

I don't see this report as good-faith; I see it as an attempt to get me punished for something that happened yesterday. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and I've already stated that I've taken all Wikicup pages off my watchlist, as I want nothing to do with that competition ([199]). I never said Godot was unethical, I said that it's unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs, and I stand by that as an accurate assessment of global consensus regarding the rules of competition. RO^(talk) 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

collapsing 18 page long section which can be summarized by the uncollapsed closure above μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"You have now inferred that I am acting unethically..." - "Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs."[200] If the first two words of your response never existed, you might be able to make a half-assed semantics argument. The fact that I exercised (good) judgement in trying to understand the motivation for your questions and therefore declined to immediately respond is no excuse for calling my ethics, sportmanship, etc. into question. You were told be me and others that you were crossing a line, told at least twice by me that continuing on your course would end up here, but it seems you were/are unable to contain yourself. --Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC) All those statements were conditional on if you had been paid to create images. As soon as you clarified that you hadn't I dropped that aspect just as I said I would. It was an honest question that you are now blowing out of proportion. I twice said that I didn't understand the licensing and permission stuff ([201]). You credited many of your images to a corporation, which I thought implied a professional relationship or something, and I wanted to know why they weren't credited to you if they were your images. It was a very simple question that could have been easily answered. I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here, but your overreaction is disruptive. I said I'd drop yesterday, and I did, so please drop the stick. RO(talk) 20:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Dropping the stick is good, not picking it up in the first place is much better. The Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring rules state: "The most important rule is that the WikiCup is just a bit of fun — at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Wikipedia. The second most important rule is to treat Wikipedia and other users with respect. If through the WikiCup any participants are hurting the encyclopedia (whether through abusing the rules/systems, creating a negative atmosphere, or whatever else), they will be removed from the Cup." Concerns about the competition should have be been politely relayed to cup judges Figureskatingfan and Sturmvogel 66. Questions about Godot's work should have been made on his talk page before pursuing further discussion. e.g. RO: I don't understand the license terms -- were you paid to take those pictures you entered in Wikicup? G: No, ... RO: Ok, thanks. An ounce of drama prevention is worth a pound of ANI thread. NE Ent 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) RO- You have a habit of conveniently not understanding things when a course of events turns against you. Frankly, I'm not worried about the opinions of the Wikicup participants for two reasons: 1) I believe they know I played a fair game by the rules, and 2) they are all well acquainted with your passion for excessive drama. My concern, however, are the organizations with whom I have established relationships beneficial to Wikipedia (i.e., blanket OTRS approvals) to whom I now need to convey and/or explain the ridiculousness of what has transpired simply because their names are mentioned in connection with these unfounded allegations of unethical behavior. I informed you on my talk page that an apology would only be sufficient if it was unconditional and it was made in the same thread with her accusations[202]. Not only was this not done, but it was followed by additional insults[203]. I'm not an admin and I certainly do not understand all the nuances between blocking, topic banning, and an "indef", but I am able to recognize (disclaimer, speaking in the abstract) when someone is potentially dangerous, and has the capacity (no disclaimer, case in point) to do damage to Wikipedia and it's contributors (e.g., images). Your mistake here was (as NE Ent stated above), not dropping the stick.--Godot13 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) RO's questions were, to paraphrase, have you put enough work into your Wikicup entries to warrant consideration, and were you paid to produce them (because she believes Wikicup is an amateur event and submitting professional images would be unethical). Reasonable questions. The problem, as I see it, is in her style of address, her assumption that your querying her motives was an admission you were paid, and her very insensitive linking of one group of anonymous works with your real name. Have I got that right, Godot13? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Pinging Godot13. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)-b Anthonyhcole- There's a bit more to it, but that basically covers it (a very passive-aggressive approach)...--Godot13 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Actually this is an account that should be site-banned. — Ched :  ?  06:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I really don't think a site ban is the solution, here, Ched. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) A siteban would be overkill, a punitive measure. Therefore, let's not do that. GoodDay (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) No. A site ban won't have any effect but to move the editor behind the now blocked account to a new, unknown name. Utterly futile and self-defeating. Moronic. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) RO, your "...it sounds like you are indeed being paid to create images you then use to compete in the Wikicup. I think that's unethical ..." was inappropriate. Very inappropriate. You're accusing him of being a sleazy cheat, and pointing everyone to where they'll find his real name. Based on what? Some conjectures about attribution that you admit you have a tenuous grasp on. That is just awful behaviour. No one wants to collaborate with someone who does that kind of thing. While you carry on with this kind of extreme suspiscion and animosity, you're just going to keep being drummed out of pockets of this project, until, yes, site ban. You need to start learning lessons. Begin with this experience. Reflect on what you just did with those comments at Wikicup. Try to see it from our (Godot's and the onlookers') perspectives. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Godot has been kind enough to get coin images to populate my numismatic articles. To my knowledge, RO is simply wrong. I don't believe uploading images for pay would be against any policy or the terms of use anyway? I can't act myself, but I remind fellow admins that casting aspersions is one of the things the ArbCom is making very clear is not allowed, and we are to maintain an environment in which the encyclopedia can be improved, and Godot has helped in the improvement immensely. There are articles I've written to fit images he's been able to get, for example Huguenot-Walloon Tercentenary half dollar, presently a GA but on my list for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Well, I'd really like RO to seriously reflect on this. I'll ask her to take a week off. Try to imagine for a while, RO, that what you did there really was really, seriously offensive. What do you say, RO? Take a break? Think about what we're saying here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) There are situations off wiki that violate "outing". But I am willing to stand by the "ON-wiki" situation of being a disruptive account. — Ched :  ?  07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Agree with Ched, this is just another example of the ongoing problems. The RO account was created less than 18 months ago; within weeks warnings were being given out about personal attacks - just check that version of the talk page generally; accuses others of personal attacks while changing policy to be inline with her assertions; more personal attacks; despite initially working with other editors and awarding barnstars, this quickly changes for the worse. There are many other examples before we arrive at Montanabw’s RfA; this was shortly followed by attacks on Dr. Blofeld who had previously helped/supported RO. This is all intermingled with several announcements of retiring and false promises to change her behaviour: blocked by Ddstretch in February 2015 for personal attacks but unblocked by Coffee. The list just goes on and on with far too many to link individually to - taking short breaks just doesn't work. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Another instance is Maunus who she had worked with but later turned on. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Good block. Kudos to Ched for doing what needed to be done. Rationalobserver has had more chances to reform and change her behavior than Wilt Chamberlain has had lovers. Enough already. If drama is what she wants, try your local repertory theatre instead. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Good block. The WikiCup drama increases every year I swear. At least we get good content out of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Can you all please try to repress the grave dancing? And Ched, you were the wrong person for this job. [204] Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Agreed. In addition, the block is punitive, not preventative. RO does need to be sternly admonished for outing, however, there is a mitigating circumstance to all of this wherein she and I were both outed by another editor. The issue was brought up right here at ANI, and unceremoniously closed by an admin involved in this very discussion, with no consequences whatsoever to that editor. So, the correct response here is to acknowledge the incorrect action of not addressing outing at that time, and to explain to RO that despite the message that was sent at that time by that admin that outing is a tolerable action, it's not. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) There is no grave dancing anywhere in this thread. Expressing support for a block and explaining why is necessary and appropriate for the block to have community support. More and more, I'm seeing terms like grave dancing, pile on, mob rule and other terms misused. For the record, I was one of RO's supporters until she turned on me for helping her, like all the other former supporters listed above. I don't want her blocked, but what other choice is there? She hasn't kept her word on any efforts to reform. The community is exhausted. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Anthonyhcole: I also object to being accused of grave dancing; I have simply tried to demonstrate that this latest incident involving Godot is typical of RO's behaviour. Viriditas was another example that had actually sprung to mind but several others have also been subjected to it over what is a very short period of time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I'm pretty sure you didn't say anything after the block, did you? Ah. Your post was after the block. Nevertheless, I wasn't referring to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) RO's last block was 48 hours, which the community overturned after about an hour. IMHO, this block should be 'no longer' then 1-week. I'm disappointed that it's an indef. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC) However, her block at the beginning of April was for six months - yet more false promises were made to get that lifted. This is all just wash, rinse, repeat .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Which was overturned after 25 days. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Obviously I was aware of that, which is why I stated: "yet more false promises were made to get that lifted". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Which happened due to promises by RO which were not kept. The duration doesnt really matter if people keep unblocking the disruptive user. No doubt RO can make more promises to lift the indef from a gulli... I mean sympathetic admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Good block--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC) If I may, if there is anyone here that doesn't think that Eric Corbett didn't deserve an indefinite block for saying: “The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.” shouldn't think that RO deserves one for saying: "Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC) And as much as I refrain from screaming "male bias" because I think a lot of time that accusation is unfounded, I'm having a hard time convincing myself it's unfounded here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC) @LynnWysong: I respectfully suggest you read the entire thread as it is not about a solitary comment made but an inherent behaviour trait. Male bias? What on earth do you mean by that? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I have read the entire thread. Why do people defend Eric Corbett's "inherent behaviour trait", which also is not based on a "solitary comment" but one that was so egregious that it did get national publicity, but immediately dog pile on RO for her behavior? Is it because she is a woman, and confrontational behavior is less acceptable when exhibited by someone who is traditionally expected to be submissive? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Why do you find it necessary to bring Eric into very thread? RO being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with this. I will not comment further on this thread as it seems some are incapable of focusing on the topic at hand. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Buh bye. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Horrible block-- Not only is Ched Involved, there was absolutely no reason to indef her account, especially without any type of ANI consensus. Look how easy it is for the EC fan club to go around and indef block female editors who don't know their place, while admins like Neelix and editors like EC himself have been given so many chances it boggles the mind. Absolutely a revenge block and Ched should lose his tools. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)So sick of the double standards, but don't know enough about the RO account to make a total judgement. Dave Dial (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Bad block Regardless of RO's past behavior, this sort of action should be by community consensus. Going straight to an indefinite is nothing but punitive. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) People accuse me of being block heavy, and Ched, you just indeffed someone who was the subject of an ongoing ANI thread that does not currently at all support an indefinite block where there's additional accusations of you being involved? That's not really appropriate behavior to take in the middle of an ongoing discussion thread at ANI about her behavior. Without an ongoing apparent issue during the course of this thread that would necessitate her blocking, how is indeffing her so she can't participate a good idea or anything but punitive? I chose not to block Neelix in the middle of a thread about him involving a much more massive violation of policy, as did every other admin until/unless consensus to do so developed, because there was no ongoing behavior on his part where a block would've been preventative rather than punitive. If this thread winds up developing consensus for an indef, so be it, but there's clearly not one now, nor is there an apparent reason why blocking her before consensus develops when there's an open ANI thread about her would be preventative rather punitive. I need to run out, but Ched, undo your block, and let another admin perform it if and when consensus forms here that an indef is appropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC) bad block please undo. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Maunus - per WP:BEANS I won't point to various off-wiki and revdel stuff, but there are enough on-wiki diffs with multiple people to justify the block. — Ched :  ?  18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC) " I won't point to various off-wiki and revdel stuff..." Not right. You can't block someone and then refuse to submit the justification for it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) That is for a consensus to decide.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Ched, the only people who could view revdeled stuff are admins and above, all of whom are presumably trusted to view it. Moreover, unless it's already hit OS, I see absolutely no revdeled stuff of relevance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Overturn block as it appears that Ched was WP:INVOLVED in the issue. An uninvolved administrator can then perform the block again. --TL22 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Good block – This has been a longtime coming. Is there a reason why LynnWysong and Dave Dial are trotting out the same, boring "EC fan club" bullshit? It is of no help here. CassiantoTalk 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Cassianto, maybe you could limit your comments to real reasons why you think this is a good block, rather than make snarky comments towards those that have provided reasons as to why it's a bad one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ...and LynnWysong, maybe you can stick to the topic in hand and not throw fuel on the fire by commenting on something that has fuck all to do with this subject. I don't know what you hoped to achieve by shoehorning Eric into this thread. Or perhaps I do. CassiantoTalk 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC) The topic is the double standard. Should I throw in a few "shits" and "fucks" so that it's more apparent to you? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Do what you like; you seem to always do. CassiantoTalk 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Cassianto, Lynn likes to bring up Eric in the hope of furthering her gender-politics. It has nothing to do with the current issue of RO except RO happens to be female. Of course anyone who has more than half a brain knows the problem was not blocking EC, it was in preventing him from being unblocked by his pet admins. Lo, RO has been unblocked at Corbett-like speeds, thus showing equality is alive and well on Wikipedia and Lynn's attempt to wedge in her gender crusade were a wasted effort. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Maybe someone could prepare a color-coded chart comparing the block records of the two, and actually try to prove that point. As well as to try to prove I'm on a "gender crusade". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) We didn't block Neelix who created a much bigger clusterfuck than this could possibly involve within the last week under the 'preventative not punitive' mantra. Indeffing someone in the middle of an ANI discussion about her behavior makes it look like those arguing enforcement is sexist sure have a point. Is there any harm to the wiki that is being prevented by allowing RO email access and TPA access, but not allowing her to defend herself in this section? More than one person challenging this block is an admin, you are perfectly within policy to point out any revdeled content to us privately rather than making us dig through your admin action logs Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC) @Ched:, unless it's hit oversight already, I see absolutely no actions in your admin logs or in RO's logs indicating that there is revdeled material that supports an indef block in the middle of an ongoing ANI thread about RO's behavior. Please explain how indeffing someone without consensus (but letting them keep TPA and email) in the middle of an ANI thread about their behavior is preventative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I don't know the background here, but do we have a compelling reason not to allow email and talk page access? It seems reasonable to allow this, at least for the purposes of challenging the block. Never mind, I apologize, it seems I misunderstood Kevin's comment. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC) As far as I can tell, we don't have a compelling reason for the block at this point in the first place. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Nor do we have a compelling enough reason to unblock. RO always has been a troublemaker and I think people have eventually had enough of her. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Compelling reason to unblock: letting her participate in an ANI thread about her behavior until consensus as to whether or not to block her is established. We didn't block someone who created thousands of redirects to the effect of tumorous titties, so blocking someone (who happens to not be a guy) in the middle of an ANI thread where consensus to block could've very well been established looks pretty damn odd. We don't as a general rule indef people who annoy us without consensus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What does gender have to do with this? CassiantoTalk 20:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Question What in the BLUE HELL does any of this have to do with User:Eric Corbett??? I blocked for continual and habitual disruptive editing. period. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Can you please explain what disruption you stopped by throwing an arbitrary indef on a user whose behavior was already the subject of an ANI thread? Once things hit ANI, blocks are handled far more by consensus, not by individual admin's feelings. All your block did was prevent RO from defending or explaining her behavior in this thread, and hindering a consensus from developing Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Ched - there would have been nothing to lose by letting the ANI discussion take its course. You seem to have been hasty here. pablo 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) This appears to be more of a gender block than anything else so I guess for Wikipedia, it's just business as usual! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Question With all things considered though, why is this indef? JAGUAR  21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment: This was very poorly done, and not by the appropriate person. I don't find "In reviewing your posts, I have decided to block your (sic) for disruptive editing" to be a sufficient rationale for indef blocking someone. We seem to have forgotten we're dealing with a human being, one who perhaps has made some bad decisions or acted poorly, but who certainly doesn't deserve to be slammed and locked into a closet without the benefit of full explanation and discussion. For the blocking admin to claim they weren't already carrying around a personal opinion about Rationalobserver is ludicrous. Drmies and Ched should be ashamed of their "I like to be fucked" and "reach around" remarks, regardless of what films they were quoting. I'm agog at what kind of culture has developed here where it's acceptable to speak to people this way. This block should be undone at once, and consensus allowed to develop here for the appropriate action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Please don't act so gullible and easy to manipulate. Those comments were made on a user talk page that RO barged in on and were not directed towards her but were meta-commentaries on the discussion. She's bringing this up to distract you from the real problem, like she's done ten-thousand times before. Wise up. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Get your facts straight, Viriditas. I started that thread you say I barged into ([205]). RO(talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) My facts are straight. I said you barged in on another user talk page, not a thread. You don't control what is discussed on other user talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Stop it Viriditas. She didn't "barge in" on Drmies talk page. She started the thread. Of course the subsequent comments were directed at her. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Why should I stop correcting errors? You should stop making them. RO barged in on the talk page. Just because a user creates a thread does not mean a comments in that thread are about or directed towards that user. RO's claims of sexism in this instance are patently false, and she's crying wolf to distract everyone from her bad behavior here. I'm very concerned about how you and RO devote an enormous amount of energy towards attacking other users and then blaming them for your bad behavior. Like how the both of you teamed up agains Montanabw and continue to attack her. Wikipedia isn't a MMORPG for you to go after other women and have little battles in your quest to become Queen Bee. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Please provide proof for the aspersions you cast. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Make that proof for the sexist aspersions you cast. Queen Bee???!!! JHFC. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment All I can say is I'm sincerely sorry I assumed Godot had been paid to create images he submitted to Wikicup. I don't understand the licensing stuff, and it looked like these images were created by a company, not an individual. I'm used to permissions being to editors, not some auction house. This was bad form, and I'm not proud of it, but I learned a valuable lesson, and I'll do my best to AGF at all time; 24/7. I apologize, Godot13. Sorry to have been a bother. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I'm a flawed person, and I make mistakes. I try my best to own up and learn when I do, and that's all I can promise. RO(talk) 21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment Isn't the above rather reminiscent of the apparent contrition shown the last time Rationalobserver was trying to get out of a lengthy block: "... The last thing I ever want to do is discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia, and I pledge to never again make heated comments at talk pages. I promise to walk away from the keyboard whenever I feel frustrated with an editor's comments or actions, and I won't ever repeat the mistakes that got me blocked. More importantly, I understand that what I did was disruptive, and I acknowledge that mistake. I should have known better, and I sincerely apologize and promise to never repeat that lapse of judgment. ... I promise to stop personalizing content disputes and pledge to assume good faith on the part of others. I deserve another chance to become a productive member of this community, and if unblocked I agree to refrain from the disruptive behaviors that earned me this block." (Rationalobserver, 23 April 2015) What confidence can the community have that if Rationalobserver is unblocked we won't be back here again for the same reasons in another three months? --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC) That was 7 months ago, not 3, but are you suggesting that two or three lapses of judgment per year justifies an indeff on an otherwise productive content creator? RO(talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Rationalobserver, I say this with no bias as to the actual events. But answering your question: "are you suggesting that two or three lapses of judgment per year justifies an indeff on an otherwise productive content creator?" Possibly. If each of those two or three lapses does, in fact, discourage another editor from contributing to Wikipedia, then it is a simple calculation: lose one editor, or potentially lose two or three a year. Harrias talk 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) That's a good point, but I don't think I've ever driven anyone away from anything. I took all the relevant pages off my watchlist and will most likely never interact with Godot again. RO(talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It's not good enough though RO. If it's not Eric, Cassianto, Montanabw, Victoriaearle, Maunus, me, Godot etc it'll be somebody else. You demonstrated with your massive overreaction to my editing of the Sinatra article that you don't have the temperament to edit here. There's only so many times you can act that irrationally and apologise for it. I really tried my very best to get you to be productive and give you several chances to shine and to try to stop taking things personally but you're in denial, and have the tendency to shift the blame onto others and the things they say. What you did last month on here in the last month was bad enough but what you've done since on Wiki'ocracy is against the very fabric of editing here and beyond spiteful. It's dangerous to people in real life. You know deep down that turning this into a gender thing is deplorable but I genuinely believe you can't help act this way. From my perspective it's very sad because I see what you can do when you set your mind to it in terms of content and why I would stick up for you, but I can no longer do this has you've demonstrated that you're naturally a petty person who can't edit without conflicting with people. It's deeply ingrained in your psyche to view everything in terms of a personal struggle, even at the best of times. You think everybody is out to get you from the outset, and that every edit made around you is done for malicious reasons. If there wasn't that sort of mentality there in the first place things would run a lot more smoothly. I'm just starting to see a regular pattern in your behaviour, you make promises that things won't happen again but they keep happening, and I genuinely believe you can't help it. The sad thing is that you view anybody who is anything less than gushing about you as an enemy, including myself. I was really going to avoid commenting here but c'mon RO, how many chances are you going to get to stop this sort of thing? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Is this some new fangled FUD? Does someone need a trout whacking here??? --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 00:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'm very disappointed, that this discussion over RO's behaviour/conduct, has morphed into a female vs male thing. Very disappointed indeed :( GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC) So am I. I think we all know why it's turned out this way. And it doesn't take a genius to work out why Eric's name has been mentioned. Maybe Lynn whatshername and Gorman can explain their motives? CassiantoTalk 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Since it doesn't take a genius, why don't you explain it Cassianto? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What, I have to explain the thought process in you mentioning Eric and Gorman mentioning gender? Don't be a (Personal attack removed). CassiantoTalk 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Yes, Cassianto, please justify implying I'm a "fucking moron." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Refer to your comments above; you'll soon work out why. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I think you are ahead of yourself Lynn. But we can see what's going to happen in the future, when dozens of editors have been banned by Arbcom from discussing gender, the second a debate is not going a certain way, someone will just say "gender" or "Eric" and half those in the debate will be instantly silenced! God help us if Gorman becomes an Arb. Giano (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Red Herring, Giano. No, this is not a "gender gap" issue. It's a double standard issue, with part of the double standard being the expectations of male vs female behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Giano, if I became an arb, I would, unfortunately, have to recuse from cases involving you. If I didn't, I'd much rather ban you for your inability to follow NPA rather than anything to do with gender, and leave Eric happily editing away. Cassianto: WTF? I had more respect for you than to randomly make a comment like that. It's sad that both of you are hijacking a thread that should be about the behavior of RO. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) This thread was hijacked long before Giano and I came along. It's us who want to keep this thread strictly about RO and for it not to blur into an argument about Eric and gender. CassiantoTalk 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Comment. RO was nice to me for months, and tried to make me one of their "go to" admins. Then I criticized one of their FACs. In response RO made an edit that indirectly referred to harassment I had experienced because of Wikipedia. I wasn't able to ask for action without pointing to my own harassment. I know that RO has done similar things to others. These are the games that are being played. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It's sad that this comment is likely to be buried in an avalanche of Giano and Cassianto. I'm not sure how to constructively restart this thread with the amount of shit that's landed in it, but would encourage people to read Sarah's comment above. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sarah, I have no flipping idea what you're talking about, but I'll bet you misinterpreted something I said or did as a reference to your issue, which I didn't know about until you mentioned it here. RO(talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Comment In my interactions with RO I have found this editor friendly and constructive, willing to act on suggestions for improvements to articles, and a pleasure to work with. Tim riley talk 00:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Unblocked As a courtesy to Rationalobserver and Kevin Gorman I have unblocked RO so that she may participate in this discussion. (Any admin is free to revert this action if they disagree, and/or once the discussion is concluded.) 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC) A terrible decision, but entirely predictable. See you here for the next round. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It may be courteous 28bytes, but this will now drag the dramah out to its last breath. Luckily, I've restocked on popcorn today. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Watch out for the grannies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I have full trust in 28 to do what is right for the project. I did what I thought was right for the project. — Ched :  ?  21:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It is a common practice to unblock someone so they can participate in a discussion about them. It is hardly a "terrible decision". The understanding of course is that they don't use it for any other purpose. HighInBC 23:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you 28. Although it's unfortunately going to be difficult to reset this thread to be about the behavioral issues in question, especially given recent standards at ANI, I view unblocking someone to participate in a thread about themselves to be eminently sensible, given that it still allows a consensus to block to form if needed, and it's rather uncommon for someone participating in their own ANI thread to need a preventative block in the process, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Discussion of possible admin actions I'd like to request that suggestions and discussion of possible admin actions be placed in this section, as the previous sections have turned into discussion of the merits of the indef block (now undone) and unfortunately devolved into name-calling and further gender-based remarks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I'm pinging MastCell, Drmies and Mike V as they've commnted or acted on this before as uninvolved admins. SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC) You just pinged three editors who agree with you. Haven't any admins that disagreed interacted with me? RO(talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Agree on what? Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Spike - I have no idea where you're trying to go with this. What the HELL does any of this have to do with gender? — Ched :  ?  22:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Ya know what? I. DON'T. CARE. ... ya'all do whatever. The level of stupidity that this has risen to is beyond my comprehension. — Ched :  ?  23:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I propose that this thread is tainted by Sarah's canvassing (see above) and Ched's mid-process indeff. A fair result would be to close this as resolved. RO(talk) 23:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Proposal declined. Previously involved admins do not constitute a carefully selected crowd, picked so that a predetermined result is reached. I had no idea that you and Sarah had cooperated in the past; if I did, I have mercifully forgotten. Sarah, the one who argued for your unblock, after you had been accused of being a Jazzerino sock--Jazzerino, an editor who sought and found trouble everywhere he looked, who claimed it was his frat brothers/housemates doing the socking, who claimed he was black so he could accuse other editors of racism. I don't believe I ever blocked you, and I think your carefully crafted insults to me were concocted only for you to claim that I am INVOLVED with you. Well, I'm not. I personally don't care whether you stay or go, but you're no good to our beautiful project. Wikipediocracy is a much more suitable place for you; I'm sure there's many an editor there who will like what you have to bring to the table, editors who are even more impulsive, cliquey, dishonest, unfailingly sarcastic, arrogant, and opinionated than me. I support the indefinite block, and I'm wondering about the length of that rope graciously granted to you by 28bytes. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry Drmies for my confusion, but are you implying that RO started the thread on your talk page nine months ago in anticipation of this conflict? What "carefully crafted" insults are you talking about? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) No, not this particular one, since Rationalobserver couldn't have seen this particular one coming. The insults are the one in the thread you saw fit to ask me about (as if they just came to your attention), and another one a few weeks or months earlier. It's a well-known tactic, and someone who claims to have been on this site for ten years or more has time enough to master it. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Oh. And, as I stated when I asked you about those "insults", I think it is highly debatable that they should be characterized that way. Given the events of the past four weeks, those statements seem to be eerily intuitive. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I have no idea what events you are referring to. I've been quite inactive recently, and to my knowledge I haven't interacted with Rationalobserver in a long time, or even discussed them. "Intuitive"? I have intuitions too, some of which confirmed by lengthy experience with off-wiki harassers. Or perhaps you have a different term for what some editors are doing on a certain external website discussing this here website. Again, if you had real misgivings about the remarks, and a different reading of Rationalobserver's insults, and an honest desire to address them and make a difference™, you could have brought those up on my talk page at any time, but I think I intuit correctly that you or someone else saved them for a more high-profile forum. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Actually, I just became aware of that thread the other day, and I was appalled by it. You keep using the excuse that it's on your talk page, where you should be able to express yourself freely, but I don't buy it. It's like saying you should be able to express yourself freely on fb, then act shocked when your employer fires you for indiscrete posts there. In any event, the recent events I am referring to is the Atlantic article and the kerfluffle over Eric Corbett. RO came on to your webpage making the point that protecting Eric Corbett was not going to end well, and instead of addressing what she was saying, you choose to characterize it as a personal attack, and then let the convo devolve into, as Anthonyhcole so aptly put it, a Frat boy free-for-all. So when, several months later, an article called The Sexism of Wikipedia comes out, and ends up in an arbcom action with Eric Corbett, well, maybe that wasn't intuitive, but more entirely predictable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) There is no canvassing, and the issue clearly isn't resolved. Cassianto, I would say it's best not to close any part of this thread, but to wait until people have stopped commenting. Otherwise we're going to be back here in another few days or weeks. SarahSV (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It's canvassing because you only pinged admins who you thought would agree with you, when reports have been closed in my favor by admins who disagreed. RO(talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) As you wish Sarah, but maybe you could remind people to stick on topic and not to make this a gender and Eric based complaint. CassiantoTalk 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Just for the record it looks as if Ched quit Wikipedia. [206]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) What's your point? CassiantoTalk 09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC) who cares? RO shouldn't have been blocked. We're better without people like Ched here. Bonus point for RO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.86 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) 'No comments on editors' restriction As per title - restrict RO to only commenting on edits related to article edits. No personal attacks, no commenting on COIs she thinks people have, basically no edits at all regarding other users. Otherwise RO is community banned. As per Blofelds succinct post above, RO has been quite incapable of consistently editing in a community spirited manner. RO has made many promises to change in the past but has not. So now change needs to be enforced or she needs to be shown the door. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Especially given Sarah's concern and the past history involved, I think a restriction of this nature could reasonable, although I'd think escalating blocks rather than going straight to a community ban would be more appropriate. Rapidly escalating blocks are normally fairly effective in deterring behavior, and a cban is less likely to result in a reformed editor, and more likely to result in an editor who is just gone. This whole thread amuses me a bit because I'm frequently accused of being heavy-handed in blocking, but 1/3/6 month etc escalating blocks will end up benefitting the encyclopedia far more than a cban would, while making it more likely RO ends up a productive editor who is still actually here. `Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well RO has been blocked repeatedly before, so while personally I feel escalating blocks are a waste of time, they should start at a month in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I've seen multiple previous situations where escalating blocks end in an editor becoming a productive member of the community, and yeah, my initial suggestion was a month. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Bullying I edit under my real name. RO emailed me a week or so ago and I replied using my usual Google account. I told him/her not to email me any more but to take it to Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy. In an attempt to bully me at Wikipediocracy, he/she went through my early contributions here and, jumping to some wrong conclusions, accused me of lying about who I am, and linked to my Google+ account, which he/she had found via my email address, which has some public information and a photo. Then I see him/her linking a collection of anonymously-uploaded images to the real name of the uploader in the conflict that kicked off this thread. Then I see him/her linking to harassment in an attempt to hurt Sarah because of a dispute at FA. I'm as convinced as one can be, and my view is shared by many of those I most respect here, that this is a returning trouble maker. But I'm also quite convinced that if we permanently block this account, he/she will be back straight away with another. Right now we know, pretty well, what we're dealing with and, distasteful though some might find it, we can keep him/her here and control him/her up to a point, using time-limited blocks. I've just woken up to find all this here, and have only scanned some of it. But there seem to be some sensible behaviour-modification proposals above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I've been emailed by a significant number of people with stories not unlike yours. At this point I'm uncertain as to whether the restriction proposed above or a more severe sanction is appropriate, because both what you describe and enough of what other people have described crosses or comes close enough to WP:OUTING for me to potentially be comfortable with an outing block - but "I'm also quite convinced that if we permanently block this account, he/she will be back straight away with another" hits on a point I suspect is likely to be true as well. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't object to the idea of potential sanction, I just found a sudden pretty much unexplained indef in the middle of an ANI thread inappropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Is there evidence that can be presented involving these kinds of things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Generally in a case approaching outing, evidence isn't presented on a public board unless the person/people effected feels comfortable presenting it publicly. Such incidents are normally handled by functionaries/arbcom or sysops directly involved. I haven't verified what Anthony has posted above, but will say that several other people have emailed me about RO that make me suspect his description is more or less accurate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Anthonyhcole, I wasn't accusing you of anything at WPO; I was being sarcastic to show that you used weak evidence in April when you analyzed my early diffs. The first diffs of this account do not point to socking, because I edited as an IP for several years and had a previous account that I declared to ArbCom in February. As far as outing, I filed a complaint in April, when another editor made several attempts to out my physical location: ([207]), which I've never shared onWiki. That complaint was summarily dismissed, giving the impression that what they did was fine by Wikipedia standards. This is one of the many problems with having multiple standards of behavior depending on how many people support you. RO(talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I don't know which subthread to put this one, so adding here. For all admins reading, I've just seen on WO that RO posted this about me "Godot entrapped me in the same way that Victoriaearle did last April, so I bet the same planners were involved with this set-up." FYI to everyone: I've been gone for RL reasons. To do with health. To do with the fact that in the past 10 days I've seen more of the inside of emergency rooms than I want. To do with facing surgery on Wednesday. While I'm sitting around waiting for that event, I dip in here, dip in there and find that I'm behind all of this?? Enough, I say. At any admin reading, (now that we all know about the health issues), I did try to put together a sandbox with diffs to show a timeline to someone else but deleted it when I got sick. Didn't get that far, but there is a timeline there. I give my persmission to reinstate if anyone wants to, sandbox is here. Admins, I assume, can read the deleted edits. PS: this behavior of RO's is meant for the maximum reaction and unfortunately it works. Victoria (tk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) PS pinging Kevin Gorman, Wehwalt, Ched, SlimVirgin, Drmies, and pinging Godot13 to confirm that there hasn't been off-wiki collusion. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Pinging 28bytes too. Victoria (tk) 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I needed no collusion once I was aware of Godot13's complaints. He has enabled my work here tremendously by obtaining quality images that certainly could be available from no other source. I have been aware of RO's problems, but also I have seen most sensible comments from her. But the thought of her doing opposition research on an editor who could be driven off the wiki, and my work harmed, as has happened in the past, led me to comment as I did. I was made aware of the matter by email, but not by Godot13 or any of the people you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I wasn't intentionally doing opposition research; I was responding to a comment that suggested it was wrong to ask Godot what his profession was, which I didn't actually ask ([208]); I asked if he had been paid to create images, to which I responded that Godot had already revealed private info at his user page and included his name in summaries he submitted for the Wikicup. If I put my real name on a file I'm quite certain that it would be fair game to my detractors, and last April, when Montanabw tried to reveal my physical location onwiki, an An/I report I filed was dismissed as not a policy violation ([209]). Montanabw tried to connect my account with IPs, and she was not admonished for it. Somebody said Godot's profession was off-limits, and I merely pointed out that he had openly shared this info to Wikipedia, and he encouraged me to look at his talk page to see the info that he later said was private. Here's Godot offering more information than I asked for at the thread where I supposedly crossed a line by asking private questions ([210]). Again, I didn't even ask his profession, I only asked if he had been paid to create images. RO(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) As may be. I'm sorry I said anything to begin with. I leave the matter for the community's collective wisdom. If I'm needed about something else, I'll be dealing with weightier things. Like William Howard Taft.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Victoria, I've been so busy with other (less exciting) stuff that I barely skimmed the entire thread, though I know the editor pretty well of course. In fact, I don't think I am familiar with Godot at all or even with the actual complaint here, and I have not been involved in or invited to any kind of collusion--though I did receive, via email, a link to the Wikipediocracy thread (is that "WPO"?) in which Rationalobserver tries to condemn me for a whole bunch of things, to the delight of many of that site's usual customers. Some people there really hate me! In short, no, I really have nothing to do with any of this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I'm really sick and shouldn't be doing this. I'm not asking for people to chime in re off-wiki communication, but rather to bring this y'all's attention. Apparently, while I'm sick, in the ER, etc., I've taken the time to plan this An/I thread. Huh? Is that even remotely reasonable to suggest? That's what I want admins to look at. I've not had interaction with RO for a number of months, have never interacted with Godot13, so was more than a little surprised to read that. The point I'm making, and clearly not making very well, is that this user's behavior bears looking at. Bowing out now. Victoria (tk) 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well, if you're admitting to having planned an elaborate scheme like this while in hospital, then...congratulations, I suppose, cause I couldn't have pulled that off. Hey: "I've not had interaction with RO for a number of months, have never interacted with Godot13"--me too. Coincidence? Or, do you think the non-existence of our off-wiki collusion is proven false by the fact that we had nothing to do with any of this? I mean, we coordinated the fact that we had nothing to do with any of this? I'm also going to leave this thread alone, and will leave it to others. I know where I stand on the matter. All the best Victoria, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Arbitration This section has gone off-topic. SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. There is too much offline evidence for the community to deal with this one properly. Arbitration seems the best, if not a perfect, answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Actually most of the offline info is freely available at the other place, however none of that is required to demonstrate RO's disruptive and combative nature - as shown in the on-wiki diffs provided in the original complaint above - most of which justify either a complete ban/block or rigourous restrictions. Can we stop sending everything to Arbcom when the community is perfectly capable of coming to a consensus. RO deserves a speedy response, not 2 months of limbo (such is Arbcom's recent performance) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I think maybe arbitration is called for also. Because there are mitigating circumstances here that should be taken into careful consideration, with some other people's feet being held to the fire also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Frankly any arbitration involving you would end up with you pushing your gender-politics (as you have above) and yelling male bias! male bias!. So while I would indeed like to see the result of you attempting to derail an arbitration case into GGTF 2.0, there are no mitigating circumstances here, only RO's past and future behaviour needs to be considered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) So, you are accusing me in advance of trying to derail the process? This is exactly how sexist intimidation works. Try to make a woman feel uncomfortable about her take on an issue by trying to paint her as a raving feminist and scare her back into submission. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well if Only in death isn't, I certainly am. Again, this has nothing to do with gender, and more to do with RO's behaviour. CassiantoTalk 10:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Okay, so, I don't want to put words in your mouth Cassianto, so I'm confirming here. What you are saying, is that if this case was to go to arbitration, I would try to derail it? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I dont really need to 'accuse' you of anything. Its obvious from your attempts here that what you want is a soapbox. Feel free to open an arbcom request. Absolutely no one here will stop you. Its your right as an wikipedian. Unless you have something pertinant to RO's past behaviour that doesnt involve making comparisons to how other editors have been treated, I think this conversation has reached the maximum level of usefulness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Personally, I think it reached it's peak several posts ago, when you started taking the discussion from the merits of arbitration to your pre-assessment of my behavior in it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Can someone less involved in gender issues than I am please invoke any of the relevant sets of arb or discretionary sanctions to get Cassianto and OIDDE to knock it off so that a reasonable discussion about Rationalobserver's behavior can be held - which should pretty much be the purpose of this thread now that the questionable block has been removed for now? Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) See above. No longer interested in interacting with soapboxers. But it is interesting you only mention me and cassianto when its Lynn who started the derailing process above by bringing in unrelated issues. As it is, this will be my last post on anything except RO in the above section. Feel free to hat this entire bit if you wish. (Also repeatedly saying 'questionable' block does not make it so. RO's block has been lifted in order to participate here, it has not been removed, merely suspended for the duration.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Of course the block was questionable. It was 1)Put on in the middle of ANI involving the blocked person. 2)Made for an indefinite length of time, which is not done without consensus, 3)Done by an admin who had in the past participated in a frat-boy like discourse on the blocked person and 4)Placed by an admin who has continually defended a male editor with similar conduct issues. Hence, the initiation of the discussion of gender issues. No, they did not come out of nowhere to try to divert attention from ROs behavior. No, I am not a raging feminist who looks for sexism in every remark. On the other hand, I'm not a "Fucking Moron" as Cassianto so eloquently implied. I call them as I see them. And this time I saw gender bias in the way the block was dealt. Now that the block is lifted, yes lets focus on ROs behavior, and some of the mitigating circumstances surrounding it. Because if things had been handled correctly months ago, I don't think we would be here now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'm taking no further part in this complete fucking pantomime. Especially now seeing as Gorman is trying to twist it around to make it look as if I am the one going off topic. CassiantoTalk 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) And, if I might point it out, I was not the only one who saw potential sexism in this whole affair. But I think I'm the only woman, and have to wonder if that is why Cassianto and OIDDE are restricting to me their rage that this has been brought up. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Again, you gender has nothing to do with this or any other thread linked to this subject. CassiantoTalk 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Holy smokers, don't take this to Arbcom. They've got enough on their hands with 4 or 5 cases in progress & Arbcom elections underway. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Well we just had a unilateral closing of the mentoring alternative. So, I guess ArbCom is the last option. Lynn (SLW) (talk) Mentoring Closing this section. Mentoring would not work. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Seems to me that, several months back a problem editor that I'm not positive of "his" (pretty sure he was-ahem-male though) identity but I think he has posted in this ANI, was offered the option of being mentored rather than banned. I think this might be a solution here also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Oh good grief. By now RO is a completely capable editor in her own right and doesn't need somebody holding her hand. She doesn't need a mentor any more than myself or Drmies need one. I suppose I acted a bit like one for a while but RO knows exactly how to produce an FA quality article. The problem is that she can't control her behaviour at times which no mentor is going to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC) The problem is that she can't control her behaviour at times Says the guy who gets mad over edits and calls people twats ([211]), ([212]), ([213]) and grease monkeys ([214]), or references masturbation to taunt an editor. We all make mistakes, the only difference is that one group gets away with it and the other gets in trouble. I striked the comments and apologized, and it would have been dropped there for you. RO(talk) 21:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Mentoring is for editors inexperienced in wikipedia policies/guidelines etc in order to bring them up to speed. Not for people who are just refusing to abide by them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sounds to me like the only action you're willing to consider is a total ban, right here and now. Mind if everyone else engages in tossing around other ideas? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC) See above section where I explicitly said a restriction on commenting on other users was an alternative. Editing restrictions (1rr etc) are pointless as the problem is not edit warring, interaction bans are useless unless you want to slap RO with interaction bans on EVERYONE. Short blocks in order to correct behaviour have tried and RO has shown no willingness to change their approach (or rather they have indicated willingness, then gone back to their old habits). Mentoring is a waste of time since RO (as has been indicated by a number of people above) knows perfectly well what they are doing is wrong. What are they going to mentor them in? 'Not being disruptive'? We would be back here within a month. Since the problem is entirely RO's personality and interactions with other users when commenting ON other users, the only real restriction that will work and allow RO to keep contributing is to prevent them from commenting on other users. Otherwise yes, a total ban is pretty much the only option for someone who is unwilling/unable to conform to wikipedia's basic policies regarding interactions with other editors. Feel free to toss that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Short blocks in order to correct behaviour have tried and RO has shown no willingness to change their approach No. That's not accurate. My first behavior block was 2 weeks, the second was 6 months, and now this one, the third, was indeff. Even my biggest detractor thought the length was wrong and should have been 72 hours: ([215]). So no, I have not had the opportunity to get shorter blocks for behavior. RO(talk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Mentorship would be best for RO, IMHO. PS: RO's gender is irrelevant to this discussion, so let's get away from that, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Institutional memory ain't what it used to be. Mentorship won't work and it's been tried informally by several members of the community already. The only thing that will work is a long block on RO and her enablers. You folks realize this has been going on for a year, right? When will it end? Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Question: RO, do you want to work with a mentor? If not, discussion of mentorship is probably pointless. I could see some value in your having some informal chats with experienced editors about workable expectations and conflict avoidance, if you're willing to do that. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If the community thinks it would help I am certainly willing. I think mentorship is great, but the biggest issue has been learning bad habits by watching others get away with things I'm later criticized for, such as last April, when Montanabw tried numerous times to out my physical location ([216]), but I never saw anyone indicate that this was inappropriate. RO(talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I don't consider mentoring to be a viable option here. RO has plenty of experience already and has basically been offered informal mentorship by several editors, to which she did not react very well. She does not seem to enjoy being subject to any kind of authority or admonition (which is not odd, of course). Everyone who has tried to work with her as an ally while also offering advice she has come to see and treat as an antagonist. I definitely would not offer myself as a mentor given my experience of interacting with RO. I think the only solution here is WP:ROPE and some clear guidelines for what is an isn't acceptable behavior in interaction with others - any further attempts at outing on or off wiki should be met with an indefinite block. The defense offered above is of course a non-defense, since only a mentally deficient person would conclude from watching someone get a way with murder that murder is an acceptable practice that they wish to engage in. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Your logic is flawed, as people don't have to be taught that murder is wrong, we know this intrinsically, but how was I supposed to know that outing is bad when Montanabw tried to out me and literally nobody batted an eye? Don't you remember the concerted efforts that were made to ascertain my previous account and real name even though I repeatedly said I won't link to it or reveal it for privacy reasons? RO(talk) 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Your argument is disingenuous since your attempt to out her was clearly done as a way of retaliating, not as an innocent mimicking of her behavior. In general I think you have shown yourself to be quite vindictive to anyone that you feel has slighted or humiliated you - which includes those who have offered you advice on how to improve your editing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'll repeat the question: don't you remember the concerted efforts that were made to ascertain my previous account and real name even though I repeatedly said I won't link to it or reveal it for privacy reasons? I was referring to this thread, which has to do with Godot. RO(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If you dont understand the difference between linking a new account to potentially problematic previous accounts having been sanctioned for similar behavior and linking an editor to an offline identity in order to gin the upper hand in a friendly editing contest, then perhaps you are not actually fit to edit here at all. This thread does not have to do with Godot, it has to do with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Maunus, look at the thread one more time ([217]). Montanabw was trying to link me to an IP, not an account. There's a big difference, and SPI clerks won't publicly connect accounts to IPS, because it reveals their physical location. Montanabw never made any connection to those IPs and an LTA; she only connected them to me. RO(talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Here we see the real problem on display. RO, after the Montanabw RfA, you apologized to her and said you would work to avoid conflict in the future. How long did your promise last? IIRC, it lasted less than a few weeks. You always promise to do something but then renege on that promise shortly thereafter. You shouldn't be allowed to edit here, it's that simple. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC) But why do you think I'm among the more problem editors when I was drama free for more than 5 months this year? RO(talk)! And I didn't receive my first block until almost three years after I started editing. Does that automatically make me an angel? Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC) No, but that's not my point, which is that I've been sincerely trying, and someone who was only here to cause trouble wouldn't be trying at all. I'll bet lots of people would show their bad traits under the pressure I've been under. In April, you said Montanabw's accusations should end soon ([218]), but they continued well into last month. These are mitigating circumstances, and my behavior has been influenced by the 9 months of character assassination. Had I never been wrongly accused my time here would have been much, much different. You were my friend and mentor until I said I didn't want to work with my accuser. That was a bullshit reason to write me off, and I would have been so much better off had you not done that. RO(talk) 21:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Comment I think mentorship is a excellent idea, as I don't think RO's behaviour has been acceptable. The main obstacle being in finding someone suitable who is prepared to do so. (a) @Steven Crossin: (formerly Steven Zhang) and (b) @GoodDay: would both make for excellent candidates, IMHO. Pinging both to see if any response. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Please read this thread. Informal mentorship has been tried by many of the editors in this discussion. It has failed in every instance, with the same exact result: RO blames her mentor for her continuing problem. There is no good reason to try mentorship again and again. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) It's not blaming you to say I could have used your guidance after the closed SPI last February, when you refused to acknowledge me after I said I didn't want to work with Victoria. Yes. I have my issues, but I don't think I'm an exceptional example of a disruptive user. I'm a productive content creator who is imperfect, but willing to try harder. RO(talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Refusing to work with Victoria was your final exam, which you failed. How can you contribute to Wikipedia if you can't work with people, especially those you disagree with? Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) But my refusal came just minutes after the bogus SPI Victoria filed on me was closed. I felt abused and harassed by her, totally unprovoked, and I just wanted some space. That was not a valid reason to throw away our friendship. That was the only time I disagreed with you. One fricking time! I wish you'd have given me a second chance, but if total submission was what you required you were never a friend anyway. I'm a person, not a bot. RO(talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I just visited User talk:Victoriaearle. I didn't see any "get well soon" messages from you. According to this discussion, she's in the hospital, and here you are, still obsessed with the perceived slights and wrongs others did to you. I keep forgetting, is this Rationalobsererpedia or Wikipedia? If it's the latter, then you know about guidelines for getting along with editors, even difficult ones. You also know that your problem isn't confined to Victoria, there's a whole list of people in this thread who you can't seem to get along with at all. The way I see it, you have a choice. Go apologize to all of the editors listed above and tell them on their talk page how sorry you are for your past behavior and how excited you are to start fresh and work with them in the future. You won't do that? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, of course I'm not going to edit Victoria's talk page until she unbans me from commenting there. The last time I went there to try to patch things up I got a six-month block. I'd be happy to apologize to anyone you think deserves it. I apologized to Godot the day before he opened this thread. RO(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If this followed by this constitutes an apology than RO has even less insight that I thought...--Godot13 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I think this should go to arb com, where these things can be hashed out in a calmer environment. Viriditas, it's not necessary to back RO into a corner like this. God, I feel like I'm watching Stanley Kowalski go after Blanche DuBois. RO deserves some apologies also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) You're an enabler, Lynn. In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. You get what you give. If RO expects apologies, she needs to start making them. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Sticks and Stones Viriditas. I've been through far worse than you. Bring it on. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) If RO expects apologies, she needs to start making them. : Viriditas, I redacted the offending comments ([219]), dropped the subject ([220]), and apologized to Godot 18 hours before he filed this An/I ([221]). RO(talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I asked you to do one simple thing, apologize in the thread itself, which you did not do. Please stop minimizing your role.--Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I did apologize in the thread, twice: ([222]) and ([223]). RO(talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I would defer to Steve Crossin, who was my mentor in 2012/13. He'd be perfect for the role :) GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @GoodDay well I think you'd be good yourself, but I can understand if you don't want to take it on. @Viriditas: you're wrong. I'm proposing formal mentorship, which has not been tried. This is a completely different animal to friendly advice and criticism, as it entails specific agreements between mentor and mentoree. Why try to obstruct something which might help? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'd agree to a mentorship with GoodDay. RO(talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I'll assume the role, but only if everyone in this discussion will agree to go the mentorship route & then with myself as mentor. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Not a chance as per all the objections to mentoring above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Break Much of what I read here boils down to "not my fault". Drmies (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I redacted the offending comments ([224]), dropped the subject ([225]), and apologized to Godot 18 hours before he filed this An/I ([226]). RO(talk) 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I feel like I'm following RO around everywhere she claims she apologized. But I asked her to apologize in the thread (didn't happen), initial apology included jabs [227]. This is a lot of justification, rationalization, minimization. This is not an issue with editing style, it is a personality issue. Good luck mentoring that...--Godot13 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I did apologize in the thread, twice: ([228]) and ([229]). Those aren't jabs; they are explanations of why I thought you were being cagy and hyperbolic. RO(talk) 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) RO, you're saying that nothing is your fault. Either it didn't happen at all, or it happened only because you were under stress because of someone else. In the meantime, the community's patience is being exhausted. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) It is my fault, Sarah, because I made assumptions onWiki that I shouldn't have per AGF. I am truly sorry I implied Godot makes money from images of currency. That was obviously wrong of me, and I won't do it ever again. I apologize better than most here, and I'll freely do it again. Sorry, Godot. I shouldn't have assumed you are professionally involved in the production of images you submit to the Wikicup. RO(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I'm not talking only about Godot. And even here you've missed the point about introducing real names. The larger issue is blaming others for your behaviour, and searching for soft spots to use as weapons, sometimes just because someone disagrees with you. As Dr Blofeld said, people are starting to feel it's dangerous, not just irritating. SarahSV (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) (ec) Well (RO), either your reality testing or mine doesn't work, because the two links you provided do not suggest any kind of unconditional apology (or really any apology at all). Perhaps this kind of misperception of your words/actions is what leads to these problems?--Godot13 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) If you want an unconditional apology then I sincerely apologize for assuming you had a professional connection to these images. That was wrong of me, and I hope you can accept my apologies. My communication is often misunderstood. That's my fault too. RO(talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I am so disgusted. You know, I was a victim of the whole "RO is a sock" fiasco. I got dragged through all kinds of crap on the flimsiest of evidence, and no one here did.one.God.damn.thing about it. Just let it happen or even enabled it. And now It's deja vu all over again. Try to come to some kind of resolution that doesn't make someone a victim again, and what happens? Threads get summarily and unilaterally closed while discussion is still ongoing, and not one admin is stepping up to try to calm the crisis. I feel like I walked into the pages of Lord of the Flies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnWysong (talk • contribs) RO is not a victim. They are the cause of victims. See diffs above RE their abuse of others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC) That is a very simplistic idea of what being a victim is. Most makers of victims are also victims themselves - the two are not distinct categories but significantly overlapping. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you Maunus for pointing out this important, correct fact that seems so frequently to be overlooked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well that's a bit too abstract for this discussion. To be clearer, onwiki (and off) RO has victimised others and any negative actions they have received in turn have been as a forseeable consequence of their own behaviour, and not through unwarranted abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I think that if you look at the actual history of events RO first experienced antagonism and the feeling of being victimized when other editors accused her of being a sockpuppet. This experience seems to have marked most of her subsequent interactions with others. Now, certainly this does not excuse her subsequent behavior or mean that she should not take responsibility for it, but it does mean that it is unhelpful to operate with categories of innocent victims and guilty perpetrators who must repent and apologize. Lots of people participated in making this giant clusterfuck, and took turn vicitimizing and being victimized by each other.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Maunus, in fact the targeting of editors preceded the sockpuppetry suspicions. From RO's earliest edits, they targeted Dan56. This prompted the suspicion [230] that RO was GabeMc and the Jazzerino accounts (see SPI), because Gabe had had a long feud with Dan. The habit of targeting people has existed as long as the account has, which is why it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well she clearly was a returning user, and people were trying to figure out who her previous incarnations had been almost from day one. Not always in a collegial or friendly way. I really think nothing is gained by painting her as the only person with a problem here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Hah, I just noted how after 1 month of registering BlackKite gave her a warning for making personal attacks against Eric Corbett whom she had called "misogynist" without providing sufficient evidence. That is actually hilarious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Only in death, please point out a single policy we have that suggests that abusing other editors is justified based on the fact that they may have committed misconduct themselves. That's not a sort of thinking that belong on this project. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well indeed, which is why I didn't say that at all, as is obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of English. Perhaps you are confusing me with maunus as I have made it perfectly clear RO's behaviour has no excuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Quote Only in death: "any negative actions they [RO] have received in turn have been as a forseeable consequence of their own behaviour, and not through unwarranted abuse".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well yes? Being blocked for deliberately being disruptive when you have been blocked before for doing the same thing is a forseeable consequence of being disruptive. As opposed to Lynn (and KG's to a lesser extent) attempts to excuse RO's behaviour as some sort of reaction to how they have been treated by others. Not sure how KG interprets that as saying the complete opposite but glad I could clarify it for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) RO, it seems to me that you're protesting inequitable treatment a lot (maybe justifiably but that's besides the point). Have you looked at NE Ent's essay WP:TANJ? Do you think you can take its advice on board? As a long term IP editor subject to "racial profiling" as such, I can say that equal treatment isn't even an aspirational goal of Wikipedia as much as some editors might like to wish it was. So expecting or asking for it tends to lead to disappointment. Best thing is privately figure out (using your own criteria) who you think the best low-drama editors on Wikipedia are, and try to edit the way they do. Looking at the actions of drama-prone editors to find acceptable boundaries to lower yourself to isn't a good practice. I also suggest quitting editing temporarily if the place gets too annoying. I do that frequently myself. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Restriction on insulting or commenting on the identity, character or motives of other editors User:Only in death proposed something along these lines, above. Perhaps allow an appeal, back here, after eighteen months. If someone is being mean to RO, she is entitled to all the usual forms of recourse (drawing the problem to the attention of an admin, bringing it here or ArbCom, etc.). Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose nothing short of RO contacting everyone she has harmed and apologizing to them. Otherwise, indef. I'm especially disappointed in the enablers and the gullible admins and editors who seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the Keyser Söze routine. This discussion gives a deeper insight into the bumbling, Keystone cop behavior exemplified by the crushing bureaucracy that forces decent people to stand up and fight against it. This is why I don't trust anyone in authority here. They are incapable of thinking outside the box and stepping back to see the big picture. The trail of victims left in RO's wake cannot be ignored by any rational observer. Gorman's continual cluelessness in the face of good evidence is troubling and has deep consequences if he's elected to arbcom. We need to start weeding the yes men and asslickers out of normal discussions. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC) What good would either blanket apologies or an indef do? That's a serious question and I'd appreciate an answer. The question is coming from someone who sees (a) a serious personality problem including sheer absence of insight and (b) someone who's been through this multiple times. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Read and understand restorative justice. There's too many edit conflicts to say more. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, forced apologies do jackshit, and you're well aware of that. As someone who has been active in groups committed to the principles of restorative justice, lived in communities governed by them, and TA'ed classes about restorative justice at a prominent American university, I honestly hope your link is a joke - especially when you include it immediately after accusing me of being continually clueless and strongly implying I am a yes man and/or asslicker. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Nothing was said about forced apologies, and I'm on record saying they don't work. There's that cluelessness, and that ego, how did you manage to carry that thing in here? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) ...And on record about three posts above as suggesting RO either apologize to everyone or be indeffed - which, in this context, is absolutely a forced apology. As rarely as I ask for someone to be sanctioned for attacking me, I'm coming pretty damn close to asking an uninvolved admin to sanction you for the totality of your attakcs in this thread. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry for offending you. Wait, was that forced because you threatened me? What a conundrum. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Yeah, we shouldnt aim for justice, cause that will never be achieved. We should aim for solving the problem, preferably with the least amount of injustice and distraction from the mission of building an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) There it is, right on cue, the predictable, know nothing literalism that infects his place like the plague. Of course, if you had read the linked article like I asked, you would have immediately realized that the concept of "justice" discussed in that article is not the same concept of justice we say can't be achieved on Wikipedia. This is the kind of know nothing-ism I have come to expect. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Wow, that is a beautiful defense of civility and "restorative justice". If you wanted to understand my point instead of stroking your own ego, then you will see that my point is that forcing RO to go through the rounds of apologizing and making things better while letting the people who she feels have victimized her be the victims does not achieve any kind of justice OR restoration. This is not a case where there is one victimizer who has to be resocialized and a bunch of innocent victims who need to have their faith in justice restored.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) You do realize that is bordering on word salad, right? Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Yeah, fuck you too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose People shouldn't be insulting people anyways. A restriction on that seems pointless. If there's an issue of WP:CIR regarding an inability to avoid a grudge and overall inability to act civilly, it shouldn't be everyone's job to tie-toe around to avoid antagonizing those kinds of people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose that "restriction" is basic policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well, yes. But we rarely police it. Just look at this very thread. This is putting RO on notice that we will police it in his/her case, and offering guidance to admins. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I'm trying to be pragmatic here, and reduce the disruption. A stie ban won't do that, it'll just precipitate another name (and probably gender) change. Apoligies all round would be utterly hollow - there's no insight here, and those who actually deserve an apology already know the value of RO's apologies. This restriction, policed with significant (weeks) time-limited blocks is the only thing I can see possibly working. Sorry for being so blunt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC) That's not pragmatic at all, that's insanity--doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The blocks have never worked in the past, yet they are supposed to magically start working now? Heartfelt apologies are worth pursuing, but because if deviates with your conception of justice we can't be allowed to try? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The point is, it spells out, in very simple terms, what we will not tolerate, making it very clear to RO and watching admins what's expected. What's your solution? Oh, right. Forced apologies or a site ban. I've addressed that, above. I have seen many, many "heartfelt" apologies from this user. Perhaps a dozen in the last eighteen months. They. Are. Hollow. And. Utterly. Worthless. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Again with the forced apologies? I'm not in favor of those. All swans aren't white and all apologies aren't forced. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) How are you going to elicit a spontaneous, heartfelt apology from this person? How will you distinguish the heartfelt from the shallow, meaningless but plausible apology? How have the multiple other spontaneous heartfelt apologies RO has scattered about this project over the last eighteen months improved things? I think RO has actually offered an apparently heartfelt apology, without being asked, in the majority of the disputes I've looked at, and then gone on to further insult or impugn the recipient shortly afterwards. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Especially when some of those people she has harmed owe her just as she owes them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I'm glad you asked. First, the editor in question has to be willing to go through the apology process. Then, and this is important, the victim has to be willing to listen. Finally, the editor and the victim get to engage in the apology process together until the problem is resolved to their satisfaction and they can put the past behind them. This isn't a "I apologize, are we good?" scenario. I'm proposing a way for wayward editors to make good on their apology by engaging the victim and for the victims to be a part of the process and help restore harmony to the community. There's nothing retributive here, which is why it conflicts with the current model and upsets people. This goes beyond the concept of punishment and dispenses with it altogether, restoring the individual to their rightful place in Wikipedia. No more blocks, no more bans as a first recourse. This is the ultimate editor retention tool. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Show us how it's done. Apologize to me for the Queen Bee crack earlier in the thread. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Closure As an editor who has served a 1-year siteban (2013-14), I know what it's like to be shut away. It's what has made me become a member of WP:RETENTION. As I would for Eric Corbett, I do so now for Rationalobserver. I'm asking all involved in this discussion, to allow RO another chance (be it with a mentorship or whatever) & hold off from an indef-block or a trip to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Can some admin shut this down already? We are going from off-topic discussion now to attacks on editors revolving around the theory of justice, enough is enough... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Knowledgekid, please note the date and time of this diff:[231]. Yet you are here? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) You are going off topic again, the point is that this thread should be closed how much more blood do you want to squeeze out of this turnip? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) From the linked diff, and I quote: "User:Knowledgekid87 agrees to work much harder at avoiding other people's drama." Further, I came to your talk page to ask you to stop per the conditions of your topic ban. Is your mentor available? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Im not topic banned anymore, I am simply asking for closure here as I do not see this thread going anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Someone smashed the conch hours ago. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Suggestion The discussion has become unhelpful, so how do we resolve it? I suggest that RO be topic-banned for six months from project space and user space (except their own). They would be asked to edit only articles and article talk, and to comment on content rather than editors' behaviour. That would include refraining from discussing editors off-wiki. Breaches would lead to escalating blocks. An exception would be made to allow RO to comment if other people begin dispute resolution about RO. It might also be helpful if uninvolved admins/CUs would examine the sockpuppetry suspicions (offwiki) so they can be acted on or put to rest. Support. SarahSV (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) You are seriously proposing trying to gag someone off-wiki? Seriously???!! Part of the function of a formal mentor would be to counsel against destructive discourse off wiki, but trying to inflict this? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support, as the alternative would likely be an indef block or trip to Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support because I respect SV's judgment, not because I prefer this solution. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support Sorry for flip-flopping. I have a problem with the ban on discussing editors off-wiki. And as worded it restricts RO from involvement at FA. The latter may be a good idea. Still thinking on that. But the former - the ban on off-wiki discussion - is, as worded, too much. I'm busy for a few hours. Will think more. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Should we specify a time before RO can ask that these restrictions be dropped? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Anthony, the suggestion is for a six-month topic ban. That isn't too long, so I'd say there's no need to allow it to be appealed. SarahSV (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Sorry. I overlooked the six months, somehow. Yep. That seems reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) SV, it occurs to me that one could circumvent the user space restriction by engaging in ping and email abuse. How would that be dealt with? RO is already notorious for abusing the email feature. Would you be willing to be more explicit about the terms, such as adding no gratuitous or unsolicited email or ping notifications? Can those with advanced rights disable echo and email for her account during the ban? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Email is covered by "That would include refraining from discussing editors off-wiki." So it someone were to report that they'd received an email from RO discussing someone else, email access could be removed. Pinging others to discuss people would be gaming, but I think we could deal with it as it arises. This sanction relies to some extent on RO acting in good faith and not seeking ways around it. SarahSV (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks. Unfortunately, there is additional complexity to consider. For example, if she nominates an article for GA, the bot will edit project space and add her sig, in effect violating the proposed proscription. More importantly, she wouldn't be able to nominate her work at FAC or comment in that namespace. Would it be acceptable for others to nominate and discuss her work in project space, or would this be a proxy violation? And need I mention ye olde transclusion trick, which could effectively violate all of the above restrictions. I didn't intend to go into beans territory, but it's important to spell these things out. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, GAN would be fine; a bot adding RO's sig wouldn't matter. FACs could be prepared during the six months and nominated when it's up. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support--I mean, sure, if we're being generous. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support As substantially similar to my proposal above. Viriditas, I wouldn't worry about it too much, everyone here knows what gaming the system looks like. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support The issues are obscured with over 100K characters above and much more in other places, and a no-drama topic ban is a reasonable outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose as written, because it causes problems but Support the general idea of some sort of sanction. RationalObserver does a lot of good work for the project but it comes with an unfortunate side order of drama and mud-slinging. As Viriditas suggested, RO would use the project space for peer and FA reviews, and may also wish to have a say in AfDs, so a straight ban is impractical. Is it possible to put a community-enforced "probation" restriction, that I've seen mentioned at ArbCom before ie: "RO is on probation for 6 months. During this time, she may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for good cause on any discussion she disrupts". I've banged heads with RO myself so I don't plan on enforcing restrictions, but other admins might? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Ritchie333, RO wouldn't need to use project space for GAN, which takes place on talk. Any GAN-related project edits would be made by the bot. It would mean no FACs or peer reviews for six months, but FACs could be prepared during that time and nominated when it's up. There's no need for RO to take part in AfDs. If someone were to nominate one of theirs for AfD, they could repond as part of "RO [is allowed] to comment if other people begin dispute resolution about RO"; AfD could be explicitly built into that. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose Until a little more investigation is done here. I want to know if someone emailed Godot13 during the time that RO was interacting with him encouraging him to initiate all of this. I know there's someone lurking in the background, emailing people and stirring up shit. I don't like way the any of this smelled. Godot encouraging questions, then suddenly became determined to file an ANI, an indeff block right off the bat, admins running off in huffs, certain cronies swaggering in, swearing and posturing, etc. If someone has issues with RO, they should have the intestinal fortitude to deal with it forthright, instead of playing nasty little games. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I warned RO at least once that if she did not stop accusing me of lying I would go to ANI. Coming here was my idea and my idea alone. I encouraged questions because it is the only way to deal with personalities like RO. When I no longer understood the relevance of the questions I become suspicious and asked about relevance which set her off. I made my issue with RO perfectly clear.--Godot13 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Regarding, "I know there's someone lurking in the background, emailing people and stirring up shit." How? "Know" implies a very high level of confidence. How do you come by this certainty? I read the thread on Wikipediocracy a few hours ago, and then there was nothing but speculation built on very tenuous hints. Has something changed? How do you know? The Godot thread on the Wikicup page seemed pretty straightforward to me. RO insinuated Godot hadn't done enough work to justify his winning the cup and was unethical, and linked some anonymous pictures to Godot's real name and Godot hit the roof. Which struck me as a natural, understandable reaction. (And no, no one's emailed me about any of this except RO, and I told her fairly early on not to email me again.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) 1. Some other people in this thread have mentioned "getting emails" 2. I've been around this block a few times. I'm the one that got an indefinite block on the flimsiest of evidence for being a sock of ItsLassieTime by an admin that was shortly thereafter desyssoped. The whole thing was instigated by an editor who convinced the admin by off-wiki communication to just block me. No ANI, no SPI, and I even was blocked from my talk page access. So, I know that people get railroaded due to editors trying to circumvent the process. If we're going to hold RO's feet to the fire for emailing others to talk about other editors, it should not be tolerated by others either. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Anthonyhcole, you keep repeating the mantra that I linked Godot to private images, but that's not at all what happened. That is how he portrayed this, but the image I linked to was a Wikicup submission that he claimed as his own and put his real name on it long with his username. Here's the submission page ([232]) and here's the file I linked to File:HUN-2015-Budapest-Hungarian Parliament (Budapest) 2015-01.jpg, which has his name and username. I didn't link to any private information. You've repeated more inaccurate stuff about me than I ever assumed about Godot. RO(talk) 16:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose as impractical but Support mentoring. The above section discussing mentoring has been hatted as "Mentoring would not work." by SlimVirgin, yet this is exactly the type of restriction that would be offered through mentoring, but with none of the flexibility. As Ritchie333 describes above it would be impractical, and is poorly though out. For example, if one of RO's articles were at AfD should would be unable to defend it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "The above section discussing mentoring has been hatted as 'Mentoring would not work.'" Which was completely uncalled for. RO said she would welcome mentoring, and it seems to me like it was the badgering she received that led to the conclusion it would not work. Hell, who's at their best when being backed into a corner? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose but Support mentoring I have noticed that drama gets started when one editor does something wrong, and other editors rush into the fray that have had problems with said editor before. Im convinced that it isn't one editor here creating all the mess. I wish Wikipedia worked in a way that a handful of uninvolved editors looks at what went wrong with the diff's provided and make the call from there but sadly things don't pan out like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose – insufficient as it's still just part of a wash, rinse, repeat scenario; Ched made a good call. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Support The terms described here seem to be a reasonable alternative to broader actions like blocking. If this fails to gain support then the original block seems like the best path. HighInBC 16:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I would support if there weren't gotchas involved. The topic ban needs to be better laid out such as where are RO's problem areas versus areas which aren't effected , I saw Ritchie bring up AfD for example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) If I can't participate in GAN of FAC there no use to this, which I think is the point. RO(talk) 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose specifically this restrictions, That would include refraining from discussing editors off-wiki. I don't recall any editor receiving restrictions on what they do off-wiki and this is impossible to enforce. Does this include email, telephone and face-to-face conversations? Considering how much behind-the-scenes emailing has been done about this case (which I am assuming is a lot), this seems hypocritical. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Sarah is one of my principle accusers going back to February 2015, so it's massively inappropriate that she has taken the lead on this and closed sections that might have offered solutions. I'm going to retire now for good, as they won't ever stop, and nobody here has the courage to stop them. BTW, Godot was lying, and he is totally a professional numismatist exactly as I assumed. The premise of this An/I is a lie and a contrivance designed to run me off. Well, congrats, Sarah. You won! RO(talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I never denied being a numismatist (in addition to other jobs). I denied (after your attack) getting paid to make scans of currency, as they have all been made as a volunteer for a museum archive.--Godot13 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) But you denied being a professional, which was a total lie. You also never disclosed if anyone had scanned images for you, but I see that the team can do 3,000 bank notes per week, which I doubt you are doing yourself. You are a professional competing against amateurs, and that's what I said in the first place. RO(talk) 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a competition but an encyclopedia. And we need more professionals of all fields to contribute their knowledge and resources to the encyclopedia, not fewer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I agree, but Godot lied about his professional status, claiming to be a volunteer, to accuse me of assuming bad faith. This thread is predicated on a lie, because I made no unfounded accusations or baseless claims. He is a professional numismatist. RO(talk) 19:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) oppose off wiki restriction no opinion on the reverse topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Comment RO has just announced her retirement [233] any topic ban would be moot unless she comes back to edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Comment And in the process of retiring has accused me of lying with no evidence or support of any kind. Retiring is simply ducking out of her responsibility to face the music for her actions. She will be back, but under what sanctions? I simply brought this here because I think her behavior is a danger to Wikipedia. After everything that this ANI went through, she was not able to hold it together enough without initiating the core of same attack that brought her here - making unfounded accusations against the character of others. A ban (six months or indef) would not be moot because she has retired a few times in the last months alone...--Godot13 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "making unfounded accusations against the character of others." Geeze, I had three or four of those made against me in this very thread, and not by RO. If RO is a danger, there's no hope for the project, because it's a rampant problem. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Comment Retirement should not be used as a way to avoid action from an ANI. She only just retired a few weeks ago and was back in under 2 weeks. I would strongly suggest that, in light of her WP:PRAM, closing this because she's 'retired' won't serve any purpose. If she's truly 'retired' anyway, an IP Block shouldn't be a problem for her...Neekeem (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Well she was unblocked in order to participate here, if she's retiring (as opposed to above where she is STILL harping on at Godot about their job) and this is closed, block gets reapplied. If this sanction is applied, then RO can unretire athe her leisure and hopefully avoid drama. One option leaves RO an opening back, the other is a closed door. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) There have been several different allegations that I have lied to RO, and lied in my presentation here (albeit from the same editor). If there is anyone who participated in this ANI discussion (except RO) who has any genuine serious concern about anything I have presented, please contact me on my talk page and I will do my best to clear up confusion there (or via email).--Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Godot13, RO has serious issues with poor choice of wording and picking the wrong fights. And, she has done both things involving you. But, usually the truth lies in the middle of disputes. I'm sure she worked hard on her entries to the Wiki-Cup, felt like you had an unfair advantage there, and said some inappropriate things in addressing her issues. On the other hand it does look like, "professional" or not, you do have a significant advantage over most contestants. Whether or not that advantage is unfair, I'm not going to judge, but I can see her side of things. Also, she's a pretty thick skinned person. As am I, and I have had to learn many times the hard way myself that what would shed off of me like water off a duck's back is pretty antagonistic to others, so I have to be careful to try to not step on other's toes. This is why RO needs a mentor, to point out to her when she's on the brink of stepping on other's toes, and to steer her away from pointless battles. Otherwise she'll be just another victim of the insensitive, middle-school mindset here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I agree with everything you say here, except for RO being thick skinned. In my experience she is extremely sensitive, to the degree of taking any attempt to provide advice or admonition as an offense, which is why in my opinion mentoring will never work. She has to learn to curb her negative behavior on her own. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Okay, well maybe just a tad Aspberger's then? And I, as well as several others, respectfully disagree that mentoring would not help. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I try not to fling around diagnoses, but I think her behavior suggests she does have something to struggle with. But then, who among us haven't? If Wikipedians were to decide to ban all the loonies, only Jimbo and Gerda Arendt would be left.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OS block & closure

• RO was just blocked by HJ as an OS/arb block. I would suggest leaving this thread open for a brief period of time before hatting the entire thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. RO will just convince another gullible admin that's she's sorry and she won't do it again and then we will be back here again. Please try to think this through all the possible choices that can occur. I don't want to discuss this again so we need closure separate from the arbcom block that will hold true and steadfast regardless of her possible unblock. No, hatting and closure is not a solution to the RO problem. It's just kicking the can down the road for another time. It's time to fix this now, not later, and we need a community consensus on the RO problem that exists independently of any arbcom block that can be lifted in the future. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I suppose it's technically an {{oversight block}}, but what we call it doesn't really matter; it'll be reviewed privately if RO wishes in the fullness of time. Of course, that doesn't prevent the community from imposing its own sanctions that would take effect if/when the oversight block is lifted. I offer no opinion on that, but as long as the reasons for the oversight block aren't the subject of discussion, the block doesn't necessitate closure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being sloppy in referring to it as an os/arb block - I just meant what bodies would likely be reviewing it rather than what body put it in to place. Even though the OS block isn't directly related to the subject of the thread, unless you see the OS block being lifted in the immediate future (and bluntly, I don't,) I still think it'd be a good idea to enact any remedies currently supported and wrap up the thread pretty quickly, particularly since threads can always be resurrected. I generally dislike long continuing harshly negative threads about people who are, well, not likely to be here in the nearterm future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas the number of insults and near insults you are throwing around in this thread are inappropriate, I'd hope that wikipedias moderators didn't make personal attacks like you keep doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.33 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam has invited RO to discuss the matter by email with Kevin Gorman, so my prediction is fulfilled. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In general practice OS blocks tend to be lifted once the editor agrees not to post the material that caused the block. I would suggest closing with sanction proposed by SV above, so if/when it is lifted there is a minimum of drama. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jonas Vinther

Proposal 1: Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ==Why I have decided to leave Wikipedia==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, diffs.

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

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[234]

I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is.[235]

Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: [236],[237],[238],[239].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonas, unsourced edits such as these [240][241] really do come across as fanboy writing trying to glorify the SS, and is certainly not neutral. You need to be able to see this if you want to convince me that you understand what neutrality means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your memory fails you: I did not make that remark, [242], but I suppose to a Fascist, all anti-Fascists look alike. BMK (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Abstaining I think a case has been made for Jonas Vinther not always showing great maturity in personal communications, but I'm lacking a concise overview of diffs establishing a problem in articles. I'm not saying they aren't there (so not opposing) but they haven't been given (so not supporting). Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The "undying fame" diff cited by Maunus above [243] really is the smoking gun here, together with Jonas' attempts at defending it. First, Jonas claimed (here, just above) that he added sources to that passage, but at the end of an extensive series of edits by him reaching into the next day, the entire section he had been expanding clearly still didn't have a single source [244]. Second, saying that the glorifying POV qualifier "undying fame" had been taken directly from some source doesn't change the fact that it was irresponsible POV editing in the slightest. A sourced POV statement is still a POV statement. Wikipedia doesn't simply take over such value judgments from sources as if they were our own. This is a reckless, efundamental failure at understanding what proper NPOV writing means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • World Media Rights make some solid, reliable world war 2 documentaries. The so-called "smoking gun" is not acceptable as "evidence" when I cited it from a sourced regarded as reliable. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've now checked several paragraphs of the text Jonas Vinther added during those days against that video he was citing [245]. Almost all of the text I saw was near-identical, word by word, to the video text. So we have an extensive issue of plagiarism/copyright violation on top of the POV problems here. (Note that the source was acknowledged through footnotes in some passages, though not in others; but this doesn't make a difference as far as the plagiarism is concerned). Jonas Vinther: you'd better clarify, quickly, whether other contributions of yours might suffer from similar problems. If I don't see you actively helping to clean up this copyright mess very soon, I will block you indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that it was a copyvio to copy words on screen into text. Most of my additions to the main SS article regarding the Waffen-SS in World War II is from that documentary. And no, I don't recall having done that on other articles, but I've cited plenty of WMR-documentaries on lots of articles throughout the years. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • "I wasn't aware that it was a copyvio to copy words on screen into text" is very worrying, and raises questions about basic competency in regard to copyright issues. For instance, when I complained about his use of "undying fame" in regard to the Waffen-SS, and he responded that it "CAME DIRECTLY from this BBC source", but claimed that although he "was just using phrases (such as "undying fame") that World Media Rights had initially written," it didn't need to be quoted because "it's not a quote". Obviously, if the WMR documentary said "undying fame" and he carried it over into the article, then it was either a quote or plagiarism -- but he doesn't seem to recognize that words spoken in a TV documentary are copyrighted. So, what else is he not recognizing as being copyrighted? What else is he quoting directly without indicating that it's a direct quote? How para is his paraphrasing? Do we need to open a CCI on him? BMK (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another diff Another telling recent diff is [246] in which Jonas added detailed material on an SS officer who blackmailed the mayor of Belgrade into surrendering by threatening to have the city bombed with an edit summary praising that officer ("OFC KLINGENBERG, WOOOHOOOO"). Discussion on the talk page has noted that this material is also much too detailed for the top-level article on the SS, and I can only imagine that Jonas added this as he finds the officer admirable judging from the edit summary. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As you would have noticed had you look at the other edit summaries before the one in question, I had just finished writing HUGE sections on the Waffen-SS in Poland, France, Yugoslavia. The "WOOOHOOO" remark was celebrating I was finally finished for the day by adding the part on Klingenberg! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt that given there's no reason to have added almost a para on a single officer to this top-level article. On a related topic, the problems with Jonas' edits to the Horst Wessel article have also been noted above, to which I'd add the fact that he uploaded a photo of Wessel's killer with the rather POV title of File:Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933.gif, which is rather worrying in light of the anti-Communist and pro-Fascist stuff previously on his user page. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I only added emphasis on Klingenberg because the cited BBC source above did so. I only started improving Horst Wessel because of a suggestion by Diannaa; I have no strong feelings about him at all and would never have started editing his article otherwise. Lastly, the title "Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933" was DIRECTLY CITED from Siemens 2013 and is a TEXT HE USES. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 2: Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indef blocked. BMK (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that was a typo, BMK, but Jonas Vinther has not been blocked at all: [247]. Oh, I see, you were referring to Jabberwock2112 above. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC); edited 13:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Poeticbent. I can't imagine why we are still pussyfooting around this as though the latest faux "retirement" should make a difference. Begoon ^talk 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alcohol Justice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting sourced materials

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Community Ban for Nalanidil

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lahiri Mahasaya page problems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Many IP addresses posting without consensus, deleting content with valid references, promoting a particular person without reliable sources, two other editors and myself have reverted the edits and he or they keeps putting it back. Need an administrator to take over. I have reverted twice myself and he keeps putting it back. Not able to leave a notice because he is using different computers - 3 at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahiri_Mahasaya Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days to stop the disruption. Requests for page protection can also be filed at WP:RFPP. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misbehavior by Semitransgenic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been long term content dispute among several editors on featured article Shah Rukh Khan. There is long discussion on talk page. After recent edit war on that page between me and Semitrasgenic, I restored pre-dispute FA version to go for WP:DRN. But he changed that version to without having consensus. See article history. We both made 3 reverts, to stop further edit war I gave him routine edit war notice, but in return he gave me holy shit. But anyway, in good faith "holy shit" is acceptable but his fart is not acceptable and what shit he does on his talk page that I should not care but he should not do it on my talk page. At least he should be warned so that he will not do such things again.--Human3015^TALK  22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He's been blocked for other unrelated incivility for 72 hours by Roger Davies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@NativeForeigner: can we go ahead and get an indef and a revocation of talk page access? If you review their talk page and see their unblock request and other such comments they have went beyond pushing the envelope and it's more than clear they are WP:Nothere.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Or @Roger Davies:, or at any other admin for that matter.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[248] [249] Their behavior is just escalating further. This coming after the block. There's no actual reason to even consider that their disruption will cease after this block ends.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week and talk page access revoked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well done Neil. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Adamhunt15 disruptive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Adamhunt15 User talk:Adamhunt15 has engaged in persistent vandalism changing pages relating to the Danish Royal Family, including creating fake members and altering the entries of actual members. He's been warned but persists. JCO312 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a ban for Adamhunt15 as this is clearly a case of WP NOTHERE Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• And the above editor is brand-spanking new, with only 5 edits to their name, all to this board. I think it might be socking, perhaps, maybe? BMK (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, though there's no apparent connection between the five issues he or she has had input on.JCO312 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Most probably, one of the issues matters to them, the rest is just cover - or, they're just a vandal. (Looking at the one edit they made to an AN/I archive, they may be related to sockmasters User:Jonathan Yip or User:TheSyndromeOfaDown.) In any case, they've been indef blocked. BMK (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using Wikipedia as a family album

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nirwanchak. This page is being used for self-promotion in a stealth way. This page was created by a user Safety14. In this page he has uploaded a selfie of himself. File:WP 20151111 16 52 13 Selfie.jpg. This page will never have any page watchers. If i remove the picture from this page, he might undo again and I don't want to watch this page or this user. Better delete this image and warn the user. I was checking the edits of Guddusaurabh and came to this page. He is following the edits of Safety14.

Safety14 is using Wikipedia articles to use it as family album. In this page he has uploaded a picture of his Father as picture of the town. in category page, he has uploaded a picture of his family member.

The main problem is that, he is inserting his family pictures in articles related to villages and towns. Someone should block him from uploading pictures. Uploading personal pictures to commons is not bad. Inserting those picture in unrelated pages is wrong. Galaxy Kid (talk) Galaxy Kid (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposedly, the first of the two pictures is in fact about the article subject. However, it appears to be more about the uploader than about the article subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Galaxy Kid, you didn't have to make that a part of the AfD--deletion does not depend on some fool sticking their selfie in there or not. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures uploaded for any other purpose other than building encyclopedia must be deleted. Administrators should delete any such selfie, family portrait pictures. If Wikipedia is not facebook, then wikipedia is also not a site like flickr or picasa. Galaxy Kid (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The images were uploaded at the Commons, where they could be nominated as out of scope. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: please ping me from next time. Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion on Commons. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Ontological argument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some IPs from Oxford have engaged in slow edit warring introducing WP:OR claims which pass neither WP:CIRCULAR nor WP:SPS. E.g. Special:Contributions/192.76.8.45. The page Ontological argument was temporarily protected, which stopped the IP from disturbing it, now protection has expired and the IP has come back with its disruptive editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive I was advised to request a range block. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Violations:

• [250]
• [251]
• [252]
• [253]
• [254]

Do notice that the last violation has occurred after receiving level 4 WP:OR warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think a rangeblock to stop this IP editor would take in about 64 IP addresses from the Oxford University computing service, and only to stop editing on one article with slow editing. Semi-protect or pending changes would seem more appropriate. Fences&Windows 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course User:Kevin Gorman declined semi-protect, which puts us in a bind. Fences&Windows 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like most of the IPs making these edits are also being used by legitimate editors, so range blocking (or even blocking individual IPs) would be overkill. I've semi-protected for 3 months; if someone thinks PC1 is better, feel free to change to that without asking me first, I'm fairly agnostic on which would be better and will defer to anyone with an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Legacypac is not an admin. Nevertheless, earlier this morning they closed several AFDs not suitable for NAC closes, generally as "delete". They then placed G6 or G8 speedy tags on the articles involved. After objections (see User talk:Legacypac#Improper close), they reversed the invalid closes, but left the speedy tags in place. At least two admins, assuming good faith, acted on the speedies and deleted the articles.(see logs for Barechestedness, Korean drinking game, Leona Tuttle, Dwaitham) Rather than pointing out that their speedy nominations had been inappropriate, Legacypac then reclosed the AFDs. Legacypac's motive seems to be some sort of WP:POINTy, disruptive reaction to the Neelix fiasco [255] ("given what I see in the Neelix case Admins are no better then regular editors in good standing at showing common sense and making good decisions").

Yes, there's a certain amount of policy-wonkery here; I suspect most of the closes accurately read consensus. But this is so far out-of-process that it shouldn't stand; it won't take more than one or two repetitions (by this user or others) before disruption could be severe. We've seen enough problematic NAC "keep" closures. I propose that 1) the affected AFDs, the three listed above and any others that may exist, be reclosed by admins; and 2) that Legacypac be warned that any repetition will result in an NAC-closure topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How about AGF? I read some policy and directions that suggested I could close all AfDs If you look at the description of G8 in twinkle and elsewhere you could easily think that too. I've rechecked the AfD closure pages and have a more complete understanding of policy now so there will be no close as deletes. I'm actually working hard to get experience in "close to" Admin area in preparation for an Admin application and that means learning stuff. And yes, the failure of Admins to deal with Neelix like any other editor makes threats against all other editors ring as unfair. Admins are supposed to be fair, not give free passes to other Admins. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify since an exaggeration of "several" was used only 1 close was even remotely not crystal clear, which I tagged it keep by default. The actual issue was it had been relisted and not ready to close yet, even though it was well into the Closed section. Learned something new. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Several" referred to discussions not suitable for NAC, which includes at least four "delete" closures. And I did assume good faith -- the main reason for coming here was your refusal to inform the admins who acted in good faith on your speedy tags that the tags had been placed incorrectly. Note also that you closed the Dwaitham AFD before the full seven days had run (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 22 for recent consensus on the issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I never Refused to inform anyone. If Admins acted on a G8 G6 with a link to the deletion discussion, that was their decision. Anyway, I was still checking my reversals when you posted in ANi instead of continuing to engage on my talk page where I was very responsive. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think if you realized that you made mis-closures, then it would be reasonable to expect that you would delete the corresponding speedy tags, too, and if some admins failed to realize the AfD discussion had been un-closed, that is then your responsibility as well as theirs. If I'm understanding what happened correctly, anyway. LjL (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is sadly a long-standing process-wonkery issue. Non-admins can close discussions however shouldnt where the close requires admin tools - not because the close itself would be problematic, but only because they physically cant take the action required. Ideally there would be some sort of tag the NACloser can use for these cases so passing admins can delete, or perhaps the perennial unbundling of tools debates should allow article deletion to be assigned to non-admins in good standing who have shown they can judge an AFD correctly. Until then, dont close discussions if the closure would require you to take an action you cant actually take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I used common sense and did a close (perfectly fine as a non-admin on a Requested Move and nearly every other part of the site) then immediately tagged the articles G8 G6 with a link to the deletion discussion, as Twinkle suggests. What I accidentally proved was a Admin sees the G8 G6, checks the link, and does the delete. If the Admin does not like the close they can overturn it with a quick undo. Is G8 G6 only for non-Admins to correct Admin mistakes then - where an Admin closes an AfD as delete but forgets to actually delete and then a non-admin uses a G8 G6 to suggest deletion? It sure seems like the whole system is set up for exactly what I did, except for a guideline that basically implies non-Admins are not trusted to establish consensus when 5 to 10 people agree to an AfD. Heck you don't even need the G8 G6, because Admins can see the not redlinked but closed AfDs and act on them. The non-admin close just saves them time. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talkpage G8 is not applicable to this situation: G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" or "Subpages with no parent page" not for articles that should be deleted due to a "Delete" close at AfD. Jarkeld (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As for "Rather than pointing out that their speedy nominations had been inappropriate, Legacypac then reclosed the AFDs." No, a non-admin is allowed to close a discussion when an Admin has already deleted the article. I acted within existing policy here. 13:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

The problem is that neither G6 nor G8 as written are applicable. While closing a discussion where the page has already been deleted is ok, as it requires no use of tools, it had effectively been deleted incorrectly. Personally I think G8 could be rewritten to include 'as the result of a deletion discussion at AFD' or even a new G. However currently thats not the process and the relevant guideline is fairly clear on this. I am all for ignoring guidelines where they get in the way, but in this case the guideline is there because it prevents (what can clearly be seen above) subsequent hassle. Sometimes guidelines do exist for a good reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry G6 "Page where the deletion discussion was held" not G8. I used G8 for getting rid of Neelix redirects to deleted pages. Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm well technically G6 does list the option to link a deletion discussion, but the wording above does not say or imply that and it has never been taken to mean that either. Technical deletions are just that, for technical reasons. Not as a result of content discussions - its a bit of a reach to say its a technical deletion because it has been agreed to delete it but you dont have the rights to do so. But I can see why you would feel the policy is unclear on that point. Suffice to say, 'we dont do that'. I would suggest someone closing this as no action and starting a discussion on the speedy deletion page to make it clearer and more explicit as to what is and isnt allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are even more problem's with Legacypac's closes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuanians in France (2nd nomination) was closed with the unhelpful closing statement "The result was ". And that's it, no actual outcome or NAC acknowledgment stated outside the edit summary. And, despite their talk page assurances, Legacypac hasn't undone their invalid close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamas Bowl broadcasters is another invalid close they haven't undone. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda McCague isn't acknowledged as an NAC, and the issue as to whether to delete the underlying bio while leaving a redirect wasn't clear-cut enough to justify an NAC. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting isn't acknowledged as an NAC, and the closing statement is "keep due to no consensus", which isn't properly coherent, but, more important, this was a closely divided, controversial discussion in a highly controversial area (Israel-Palestine), and was absolutely not suitable for an NAC. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred M. Manning was closed as "keep" even though the !votes divided 2-2, and, unusually, all the !votes were grounded in policy arguments. This was plainly not suitable for an NAC, or even an admin close with a vacant closing statement that "The result is keep". On further reflection since my original post, I think that Legacypac has demonstrated a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this particular area and should refrain from NACs until they can demonstrate much greater capability to appropriately apply deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred M. Manning (non-controversial chap) There was a Nom, then one iVote delete, then an editor weighed in with sources and iVoted keep, then I weighed in with obits form the Denver Post and Los Angeles Times and iVoted keep. Perfectly proper close by Legacypac of an article that WP:HEY was well-sourced by the time Lecacypac closed it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are wrong and you fail to AGF. My success rate at deletion is very high. Most of us know that a split vote defaults to keep. Your gratuitous attacks on me are unwarranted. I'm learning how to do this function, honestly. How about focusing your efforts on sanctioning and blocking the person responsible for the backlog in AfD and RfD right now instead of hassling one of the people working to clean up the mess. Help me, don't act like a jerk and attack me. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A split vote does not default to keep. 'No consensus' defaults to keep. A consensus discussion takes into account the weights of the arguments provided. Manning for example should have been closed as 'keep' with the rationale that the keep voters provided stronger arguments (and in one of the participants cases, significantly improved the sourcing/article.) Not just 'keep' with no explanation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Umm not entire sure if Legacypac's aware but WP:BADNAC does state AFDs shouldn't be closed as Delete by non-admins, I did the exact thing -I closed 3-5 AFDs as Delete despite not being an admin and was told I shouldn't and that was the end of it ... If you're only closing Neelix-related articles as Delete then to be fair it's rather petty and unconstructive, Neelix got a good telling from everyone (myself included) so continuing it will only make it worse for you, I'm pissed off nothing got done but shit happens and life moves on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was notified of this discussion as an involved third part, as I reverted a number of Legacypac's AfDs and I started the mentioned User talk:Legacypac#Improper close discussion in their TP. While at the time I had not enough time to investigate all their closures, after reviewing the multiple instances analyzed above by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I have to agree it would be safer if Legacypac avoids NACs for a while. For the record, an additional problematic NAC not mentioned here was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASHI, closed as delete just a few hours after being relisted, and with a consensus which actually seems to lean more towards keeping the article than towards deleting it . About the deleted articles, I recommend to revert the NAC-delete AfD closures and re-close them as soon as possible, as they need to be deleted following the proper process. Cavarrone 16:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing this one out, I'd missed it. It's particularly inappropriate because Legacypac, given their efforts to remove Neelix's efforts, looks like an involved editor and really shouldn't have acted on it, especially since they read consensus on it so inaccurately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm doing something about the mess - unlike the admin busy trying to smear me here who has a mop and could block Neelix but does nothing. 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

• @Legacypac: I noticed earlier that you also have a proposal at Village Pump to change the guideline to allow non-admins to close discussions as delete, which I support generally even though at the moment it has no chance in hell, but I'm not sure whether or not that proposal predates the activity highlighted in this thread, and you should not be doing this. As annoying as Neelix's many thousands of redirects are, there have been a significant number already which have been shown to be valid, as well as a significant number which admins have already speedy deleted. Allowing those discussions to proceed within the current guidelines is the way to handle this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The proposal was made when I found out there is policy against a lowly user closing a discussion as delete. While I admit I made a couple small errors in my first closes, I stand by my judgement as being as good as the average admin and better then some. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, your errors seem to be good-faith misunderstanding of the NAC rules; at least some of the ones that Hullabaloo listed have been re-closed confirming your result. You also seem to have made some technically wrong closures (as in, you didn't use the templates correctly) but that can also be fixed. As friendly advice from a fellow non-admin who's done bad NACs and gotten hell for it in the past, I think you should consider not closing any discussions involving Neelix creations since you're perceived as having an anti-Neelix POV, but otherwise I don't think there's any more to do in this thread. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya I'm not trying to cross INVOLVED. Also if I had an anti-Neelix bias I would have tried to delete a heck of a lot more of his work I've evaluated (maybe 30000 redirects and 1/2 his articles). Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

.... You actually nominated Neelix for deletion, for crying out loud? An article entirely unrelated to the user but which happens to share his name? That is not an action of the dispassionate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed as Speedy Keep - Nominating an article based on an editors name is not only stupid but a waste of time!, LP stop the nonsense otherwise you'll end up blocked for disruptive editing!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• This may be the incorrect spot to put this, but I believe all of Wikipedia needs a refresher course on the correct rules of AfD's. I've, personally, been stomped on and made fun of numerous times over at AfD while attempting to save or work on fix an AfD which all seems hugely unnecessary. Why it's considered acceptable for deletionist to hound and make fun of editors just because they vote Keep or work on improving an article, I'll never understand. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• These are correct decisions with the exception of NASHI, which shouldn't have been closed because of the closer's involvement with the editor who created the article (particularly the Arbitration case comment and talk page archiving). The Beersheva bus station shooting discussion is too controversial for NAC, but others could stay closed. AFD discussions often have too few participants, even after relisting, and closing discussions where the result is obvious is more likely to shift participation to where it is more needed. Reopening just because a non-administrator closed as "delete" is not productive in these cases, unless contributing something that could change the result; it just adds unnecessary process and leads to discussions such as this. Peter James (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should follow policy as it is. If you wish to advocate for a change to allow for NAC closures that result in deletion, that should be proposed. At the moment, that's not in line with policy. Otherwise, Legacypac needs to stay away from NACs until they have learned more about when it is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy includes "ignore all rules", and others that conflict with each other and can be interpreted in many ways. Even where policy isn't followed doesn't mean it's appropriate to retrace our steps and repeat the same procedure, unless there's the likelihood of a different outcome. I'd agree that Legacypac should avoid closing discussions of pages (or redirects) created by Neelix, but not from NAC entirely, from the evidence presented here. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIS threat on ClueBot NG's talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am posting here about an edit claiming to be from ISIS on ClueBot NG's talk page. The edit can be found on the following link :

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons&diff=prev&oldid=690948082

The IP previous edit was derogatory about the USA. I am aware that this is probably an IP just making false claims, however I've erred on the side of caution and emailed the emergency team in case the authorities need to be notified.

I've not rev del'd anything in case any outside bodies need to see the edit.

I'm posting here because I'm currently on holiday and may not be able to log on every day. I'd feel better if other editors kept an eye on this IP as well. 5 albert square (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Dude. Do you think the IP really is ISIS? While I see the need of notifying the authorities, please don't blow things out of proportion.—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I started and therefore watch some ISIL related pages. I regularly see pro-ISIL vandal edits, often geolocated to the Middle East and Pakistan. I always revert on article and tend to revert the worst ones on talk pages Legacypac (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope but I'm also aware that Wikipedia policy states that I can't be judge, jury and executioner. 5 albert square (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This IP geolocates to Kingston, New York. BMK (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Likely a Syrian refugee than, or not... [256] Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to erring on the side of caution. However, I would not worry about rev-deling. Go ahead and do it. I guarantee that if the authorities need to see the deleted material, it will be easy to arrange to get it to them (and for the paranoid, they probably already have it)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Kingston, NY isn't exactly the first sort of goal for refugees...—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Kingston, NY Chamber of Commerce will get you for insulting our lovely and desirable municipaltiy! EEng (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Disclaimer: Not an actual threat from the Kingston, NY Chamber of Commerce, nor indeed any threat at all.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse from Crash Underride

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crash Underride (talk · contribs) Recently I was involved in a content dispute over whether or not Australia should have a separate section on the List of professional wrestling promotions page. My position was that it was duplicating information when not required from the List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. I started a discussion on the talk page of content dispute, but some editors, including Crash Underride, insisted that I proceed to the Pro Wrestling Project talk page where a discussion had already started. I consider this not to be SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) and I left one message stating clearly that the discussion should be taking place on the talk page of the article in question - as this was a content dispute and not a subject dispute. That's for background. When another user changed the layout of List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia to look more like the other lists limited to regions (that had also duplicated information) I realised that I was not being heard, and instead of pursuing the matter, I chose to disengage and stated that on the article's talk page. I consider the matter to be closed.

However Crash Underride would not let it go. My perceived conduct under WP:3RR (which I stated several times I had not broken during the content dispute) was aired on my own talk page. After I disengaged, Crash Underride came onto my talk page and edited when he knew I had done so thus. I reverted it as baiting and said so in the edit summary, only for him to put it back thus. I reverted it again warning him in the edit summary that I would invoke WP:CIVIL if he did that for a third time time. Instead, he started a new topic on my talk page that was excessively abusive. It has been reverted and as far as I'm concerned that's three strikes and "you're out". It was a clear attempt to claim that I was gutless for not stating what policies I was invoking (IIRC I did on the article talk page addressing the SOP on content disputes) and the fact that he came back to my talk page three times indicates that this could be an ongoing problem if he is not stopped by an administrator, hence this report. Thank you for your attention. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please fix my name. I'm not the character from the movie. Secondly, I've just tried to point out why you were wrong. Then you falsely accuse me of edit warring against you, teaming up with another user, @InedibleHulk:. And when I point out falsehoods on your talk page, you delete them acting as if they never happened. You're acting childish. I'm just trying to show you that acting as though what you say must be obey is beyond lunacy. Whip me, scold me, brand me, I don't give a crap. Just learn that you're not the power that runs everything around here, "Mr. (or Ms/Mrs) Policy out the ass". Crash Underride 22:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mega Z090 has disengaged, so there's no need for you to post to his talk page anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the rest of the report, and I'll just say to the above; Precisely. Any point beyond that is superfluous. Crash Underride's claim that I check my ego suffers very strongly from WP:BOOMERANG. Crash Underride's ignorance of my disengagement multiple times can not go unpunished IMHO and his conduct here goes to show that WP:CIVIL has been not just broken, but smashed. He didn't even address the abuse of his last edit on my talk page. I suggest that this is an admission of guilt. Mega Z090 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that continuing to engage is no way to disengage. Maybe I'm wrong, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right and you described Crash Underride admirably with that comment. Thank you very much. Unless you mean me, in which case you're wrong because I'm simply reporting what I consider to be poor conduct on my talk page - a separate issue - and addressing that and that alone. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Proceed. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So, me trying to point out that you never did anything civil yourself, other than whine and bitch about policy after policy that had already been discussed is "abuse"? My last "abuse", as you put it was just trying to point out that you proved you had no interest in discussion unless it was one that proved your right. You proved that point by removing posts from your talk page as though they never happened. You also never apologized to Hulk or I for falsely accusing us of teaming against you. That's my biggest problem. Crash Underride 12:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm allowed to let me falsely accuse me of something? Seems backwards to me. He's a young editor that needs to learn to stop lording policies over more experienced editors who've had discussions previously about similar situations including said policies. Like was mentioned many time on the discussion that brought us to each others knowledge. Mega needs an ego check. (Note: Thank you for correcting my name, I appreciate it.) Crash Underride 22:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember when pinging was called tagging? It might still be, in some places. But no, I have no partners here. No real opinion to offer, either. May the best man win! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirecting Allie X And CollXtion I wiki pages/Vandalism/

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zpeopleheart is very blatantly ignoring my repeated requests for him to stop attempting to merge/redirect/informally delete, whatever it is he is all doing, to the Allie X and CollXtion I pages. There are talk pages open on the CollXtion I and Allie X pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allie_X and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CollXtion_I) that are attempting to explain it formally, after requesting he cease on his user page. He is completely disregarding previous discussion on the article and many Wikipedia policies and is undoing all of my edits to restore the articles until he formally propose these changes on the talk page or submit it to arbitration first, yet he still does not care. Difs exemplifying the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Allie_X&type=revision&diff=691152872&oldid=691149346 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CollXtion_I&type=revision&diff=691151140&oldid=690859607 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CollXtion_I&type=revision&diff=691154659&oldid=691151140 He is also continuously insisting youtube is never a reliable source, even for WP:ABOUTSELF. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&type=revision&diff=691155048&oldid=691154790 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&type=revision&diff=691151313&oldid=691150888 I feel like he is not following WP:MUSBIO, WP:ABOUTSELF, etc. He is accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP for asking him to stop making these edits until it can be settled, and he is certainly not following all of the policies for these massive edits he is making, even after requesting that he do, like WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. It clearly says to request for Articles for deletion when there is debate, which there quite obviously is, yet he didn't. Someone else tried to delete all the articles in the past, and yet they were kept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_X. I would like to see better protections put on this page. It is astounding to me such a small page is having so many editor issues. The fact that he is also using Twinkle to do his edits even after being informed of these policies and requested to follow them seems like WP:TWINKLEABUSE to me. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure this was the warmest sentiment, but at any rate, I agree that there is some serious WP:IDHT going on. If it continues, maybe a topic ban would be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it wasn't, but I'd already been having minor issues with him debating things. I already tried to restore the articles, and he just redirected them again (which I believe I already showed). There seems to be some kind of change, because had just been copyediting and cleaning up the two articles for a while, then all of a sudden he blanked them. So what do I need to do? Revert the articles? Let someone else do it? I'm at a loss for what to do besides just watch for nowSanctuaryX (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And now he has left a message on my talk page telling me I am attacking him on this noticeboard, and that I should desist at risk of being banned. All of this instead of actually putting a word in here; he can't follow simple guidelines and policies. Please, someone just fix this ASAP. It's not a difficult issue. Ad hominem arguments are perfectly acceptable if proof of their malfeasance id offered. SanctuaryX (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And now he is continuing to harass me on my talk page. The amount of times I have had to deal with petty rivalry over the very little I have done on Wikipedia is very disheartening; while this may not be groundbreaking, it is very irritating and upsetting to have all of this happening and practically ignored.SanctuaryX (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Some diffs would have helped, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about this and this. I agree that something needs to be done. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirects and requested full page protection - redirecting without discussion or consensus is not appropriate - especially when one of the pages has survived an AFD before. However this is a content dispute mainly. I suspect both will end up at AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. As someone who has minor contributions to this article, I feel that of the past few days WP:GOODFAITH went out the window. It would be good if perhaps both editors stepped away from the article for a while. Karst (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair on the other hand the OP has has issues with WP:OWNERSHIP in the past during the past afd. I can say the redirects should probably have been talked about first. But what is the deal with all the personal attacks toward Z? OP made attacks at me during last afd. She got away with those then. Looking at her talk page she has been warned 4 times up to a last warning. My only other comment would be is OP a SPA? Looking over her contributions she has only ever edited on the 3 allied articles with a token exception on plant article. WordSeventeen (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here; honestly, I thought it suspicious after not being around these articles you suddenly showed back up and started editing them? Do you know Zpeopleheart? I have never exhibited ""WP:OWNERSHIP", and considering the AfD sided with me, I wouldn't really say it seems those people thought I did either. They recommended removing certain types of information politely, which I did gladly. I like to do the best I can with any work, and it feels good to contribute; I'm tired of that being spoiled by people doing all of these wretched things. I just have concern for the article, and take issue with people totally disregarding so many things. I'll admit my responses are not always the "warmest sentiment" as put before, but for you to come back here and start making these accusations is just further harassment. Yes. He warned me. So what? The comments I was making here don't violate anything. WP:WIAPA clearly states "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki," is a personal attack. I would say I provided plenty of evidence, therefore it doesn't apply. I have made several talk pages on the corresponding articles trying to address several issues, all of which are currently being ignored as you people continue to make your changes. I would like to see a topic ban put in place for both WordSeventeen and for Zpeopleheart.Him comig here and making baseless and falde accusations against me and also going through my edit history. This is harassment and wikihounding. They are STILL ignoring policies and continuing to act in a tendentious and inappropriate manner. SanctuaryX (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

wow, I stopped in to make a comment at ani since the aly articles are on my watchlist, and you propose a topic ban for me? That would be a stretch. Someone needs to think about a WP:BOOMERANG for all of your disruptive behaviors. WordSeventeen (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't just drop in and comment. I wouldn't have cared then. My request was based off of your previous behaviors, the fact that you're back here all of a sudden, and the fact( as I said) you are making baseless and rude accusations towards me. Furthermore, many of your facts were false. I have contributed minutely to some other plant articles as well, including some imagery. I stated all of this already, I guess I just didn't make it clear enough. I would like to contribute to some other articles, but if you notice, I haven't really been contributing anything lately to other articles. I recently enrolled in college, I don't have all the free time in the world, and I quite frankly spend enough time writing for school that I don't have much desire to here at the moment. If I was here just to give some kind of publicity for her, wouldn't you think I would have a lot better citations and not have such issues with reliability and finding citations? It's an illogical accusation, ones that you have continuously made in the past, and that is why I asked for a topic ban. And right now, I am actually relieved an admin is fully protecting these pages until this is sorted out. I wouldn't care if it stayed that way forever. Yours and his continued refusals to discuss anything on either of the talk pages is also a severely disruptive and negative impact that needs to be addressed. SanctuaryX (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I dropped a week of full protection on them following a request at RFPP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mzajmi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unfortunately, I believe this editor needs to be indef blocked. All of their uploads on Commons have been deleted as copyright violations, and he or she has been indef blocked there. Here, both of their uploads are marked as "own work", despite being screenshots (and one of them from Tumblr). There is no copyright or licensing information on either image, so they've both been marked for deletion. Every single one of their article edits have been reverted by a number of editors (including myself), and they have not responded to any of the messages left on their talk page.

This combination adds up to a block, whether for WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE or the refusal to discuss. I'd appreciate it if an admin could take a look and see if they agree with my evaluation of the situation. BMK (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Notified. BMK (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering that both uploads are the only edits this user has done so far, despite what happened at Commons, indeffing him/her seems a little premature, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• (Actually, those are the only two uploads, the editor has a total of 193 article edits, which, as I mentioned, have all been reverted.)
  Would you feel that same about a timed block? BMK (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake. Since most (if not all) of his/her uploads appear to have been deleted, it would be hard for me to truly comment on the situation, so I think we should wait for an admin (who obviously has access to deleted files) to weigh in. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Might point out thing like this - [257] - where the file name is a BLP violation. Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a copyright violation warning on their talk page. No issue if another admin wants to block but generally I like to see if editors heed that blunt warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User has continued unabated. I have blocked the user indefinitely and will leave a note on the user's talk page, indicating they can be unblocked once they show they understand the situation. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass delete nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FreeatlastChitchat has been mass deleting below articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of mourning of Muharram
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The signed letter of Muhammad al-Mahdi (Tawqee)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziyarat of Ashura
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Ashura
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dua-e Ahad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of closing the doors
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Fatima tablet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeer Du'a

All these articles nominated on 18 November 2015. Also, the user not mentioned reliable reason for nomination. The main reason of this user is Google search and first search the title in the Google and If don't find same topic, nominate the article. I think that user is not a professional and there are many warning notification in his/her talk page. Also, the user have not any edit in nominated article fields (Muharram, Shia's prayer and etc.). We can talk to each other in the talk page of articles and solve the problem. In Wikipedia, last way is deletion. Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment First of all I have provided rationale on every deletion discussion, and other editors agree with me (It has only been 8 hours since the discussions were put up btw). Secondly, I have been cleaning up articles during the past month and almost 90% of them have never been edited by me, until I start a cleanup. These articles, which I nominated for deletion, caused me quite a lot of wasted time in cleanup/Preview/source checking after which I realised that they were unsalvageable. Furthermore, if you have any rationale why these articles should not be deleted, come to discuss it at the AFD. You should not WP:OWN these articles and try to protect them from deletion discussions. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, but you really do need to tone it down a bit. You're not a prosecutor seeking a conviction. The ultimate goal is to improve the encyclopedia, either by removing articles on non-notable topics or by improving them to the point that they comply with policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment, for example - we could do with less of the mocking ("It kinda made me laugh,..."). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- there does not appear to be anything wrong with these nominations. They give the impression of having been well considered and the nomination statements are clear and well argued. No administrator intervention is necessary here. Reyk _YO! 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not seeing any problem with the deletion nominations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I dunno, if I worked in this topic and had to cleanup 8 articles at once, all while defending them on the merits at 8 different debates? I'd be pissed too. But there's nothing procedurally wrong with the nominations, in and of themselves. And if the editor doing the cleanup showed progress and asked for extra time, I'd hope that an admin would relist some of these on that basis. Nothing else for ANI, really. Good luck to you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@UltraExactZZ, perhaps a middle ground will be Wikipedia:ATD-I. But I am not sure if the creator will agree. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@User:Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) abuse of editorial discretion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@User:Peacemaker67 deleted almost 3000 bytes of validly sourced text which I added to an article (List of massacres in Yugoslavia), In an edit summary comment he indicated that he had a problem with one word, which I still feel was appropriate but am open-minded enough to be convinced otherwise. I assume it was just the one word as he did not deign to explain further. Rather than constructively re-editing it, i.e. by removing the offending word, he intentionally deleted the entire thing, then thought the better of it by undoing his deletion, then decided to go for broke and delete it again out of spite (see [258], [259], [260], [261]).

The user elected to inappropriately insert inflammatory diatribe at the List of massacres in Yugoslavia which does not even call for such text, and I sought out contrasting quotes from reputable sources to counter this/his bias. This is not to use Wikipedia to be a "do gooder" or "do good", but rather to provide a needed balance on a contentious and still topical matter. I want my edits restored and an apology from @User:Peacemaker67, whose username (which is a name by which firearms used to be referred) indicates that he wishes to control other editors and likens them to livestock to be spurred and whipped ("crack... thump") has not gone unnoticed nor has his overbearing and obnoxious demeanor. Quis separabit? 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried restoring and then discussing on the talk page? Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

...Or just discussing on the talk page? (rather than begin/continue an edit war, regardless of who's right) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(The answer, which I should've checked before indirectly replying to a reply, is that the 3000 byte addition/removal that sparked this thread does not look to have been specifically discussed on the talk page, but it's also not a new dispute. Still, it does look to be a content dispute. @Rms125a@hotmail.com: what admin action are you seeking such that this isn't better suited for e.g. WP:DR? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• This really isn't worth a response, but in the interests of full disclosure, Rms125a and I have been having a bit of a dispute which began with him/her wishing to engage with me on my talk page about my views on the history of Yugoslavia, which gave me the impression he might be here to "rights great wrongs" against Serbs, at least in the Yugoslav space. This has been carried on to the list in question, where he began by deleting reliably sourced material he obviously didn't like. It has gone downhill from there. What happened this morning (my time) would only have been one revert if it was not for my sausage fingers and the size of the screen on my mini iPad. I hit the rollback link instead of the undo one, so I rolled myself back, then undid his edit. The edit relates to the content dispute. I'm happy to apologise for the rollbacking, but I won't be apologising for the undo, in which he characterised the findings of the previously deleted reliable source as "extreme", without providing a reliable source for the characterisation. As far as the disparaging of my user name is concerned, he is way off base, but I don't see why I should elucidate. This should just be closed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starship9000 and IPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We seem to have just gotten another sock post on this very page. GAB^Hello! 20:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, par for the course. In addition to a one-year ban on the English Wikipedia, Starship9000 engaged in vandalism on other projects, earning a global account lockout. See here for details. He appealed his lock here and was rejected. Check out my talk page history if you want to see reasons he should not be allowed back. I'm not sure how locks and blocks work together, but I believe he is currently unable to edit Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. Andrew³²⁷ 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser: On the global block requests page it is shown as done, but no indication if it is for three years or indef. The global block was enacted by Vituzzu who I have pinged to chime in here with an update on the status of the global block. In the meantime I suggest that due to the lack of maturity expressed in the above comment by 166.172.57.27 and its possible use as a sock or block evasion, it should be blocked. For the same reasons I suggest, pending a response from Vituzzu on the staus of the block(s), that the community consider blocking Starship and all his IP socks indefinitely, raising an an SPI and asking for a CU to look for sleepers, particularly in that IP range. Note: WP:BASC has now been disbanded, leaving WP:UTRS as the main venue for local unblock requests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung he is locked indefinitely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Berean. It seems that the global blocking system is still under develpment. These needs to be a way of displaying such locks in the user's local block log. So based on this, I am blocking 166.172.57.27 for block evasion witrh the recommendation here that any further disruption or evasion should be met with a range block and a CU request for sleepers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lock prevents locked accounts from login and it has no automatic expiration to be set. So any lock as an indefinite length. If in the future you'll find any sufficient background for unblock don't hesitate to poke me, currently I don't see any. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, an easy way to check is to hover over his wiki-linked username, User:Starship9000 and if you have navigation popups enabled in your gadgets panel then you can see that he is locked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor "retiring" on a daily basis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since 2012, User:My very best wishes has regularly blanked their talk page and replaced it with a {{retired}} or {{long wikibreak}} (recently "[until] January 2016 or later") template, while continuing to contribute to discussions and articles on a daily basis. These break and retirement templates are usually removed the next day.

I've raised this a number of times on their talk page, expressing the concern that the templates are misleading other editors, and have been told that, while they can see my point, the behaviour "helps me to relax and minimize my involvement in contentious disputes". I'm sure it does, but falsely claiming to be absent from the project (such that other editors are discouraged from raising questions or warnings on your talk page, and may even abandon article talk threads if they think another person has left the conversation) seems to go against basic etiquette that editors should not "intentionally make misrepresentations" to one another.

I've suggested using a {{busy}} template or requesting a WP:BLOCKME if they're genuinely struggling to leave Wikipedia every day, but they're still choosing to add and remove retire templates instead. Is this behaviour appropriate? --McGeddon (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Either they should place {{semi-retired}}, {{can't retire}}, {{attempting wikibreak}} or {{Off and On WikiBreak}}. {{retired}} is not for short wikibreaks like that, I must agree. --TL22 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really matters? There is nothing to step them repeatedly retiring and un-retiring, even though it creates an unhealthy impression. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's inappropriate about it. Maybe it's annoying, but users are explicitly allowed to blank their talk pages. As long as they're not blanking any of the notices that are required to remain (block notices, etc) then I don't think anything needs to be done here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I faithfully respond to all notes and questions on my talk page. So far no one complained about these templates except McGeddon, and I am surprised he is complaining because we do not interact on any subjects. As I already explained [262], this is a psychological thing. Placing such templates helps me to relax and focus on my real life work. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

See the comment I just posted below. The problem is that while you may be responding to all messages, people may not bother to post them if they think you are genuinely retired. They are not likely to appreciate "retired" simply means I want to "relax and focus on my real life work" but plan to edit the same as I always have. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I don't see anything wrong with the blanking (since editors are allowed to do it) but I don't think the retired part is ideal. Editors who see a problem with MVBW editing may assume they shouldn't bother to message them since it doesn't matter any more. However, I'm not sure whether we should actually try and do anything about it rather than ask the editor if they would reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, since this became a matter of discussion on the ANI, I definitely must reconsider. However, sad truth is: I actually would like to stop editing, at least for a long while, and asked to block my account for three months at one point, but that unfortunately resulted in some unintended consequences, so I would rather not do this again. Fine, this is something for me to fix.My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was an unacknowledged joke that most editors with a retired template on their talk page were not actually retired. I've seen editors with a message stating they were retired or semi-retired after years of continuous editing. It IS misleading but I don't think we want get into policing talk page messages. I just don't pay much attention to those messages any more because I have a script that shows the date of their last edit that shows where the template is valid or just expresses the editor's desire to retire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't met that joke. Given its usage notes ("Do not use this template unless..." "...any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page..." "...should promptly remove this template from their user pages if..."), I'd always taken the {{retired}} template as a bright line, on the same level as seeing that someone had been indefinitely blocked. If I hit a talk page with "R E T I R E D" across the top (and only blankness or ancient comments below it), I'd most likely take it at face value and not stop to talk or to template.

Isn't any conduct dispute ultimately about "policing talk page messages"? We are all our talk page messages. I'm not suggesting that "don't tell lies in templates" should be policy, just observing that a user is openly admitting to finding respond-then-retire-for-a-few-hours to be a useful lifehack to "relax and minimize my involvement in contentious disputes". This seems like straightforward WP:GAMING, and not worth the inconvenience to good-faith-assuming editors. --McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with McGeddon. The "Retired" banner is not something to play around with -- it's a farewell, and alerts other editors that the person will not be returning and thus any outstanding discussions or issues will never be returned to or addressed. Using and removing the "Retired" banner over and over is indeed WP:DE (and WP:GAMING, as McGeddon observes), just like it was for Supdiop, who eventually got blocked and then banned. "Long wikibreak" means exactly that, and if that banner is being misapplied, that is WP:DE as well. This insincere and misleading nonsense has got to stop. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Call me a sheep, but I believe that template instructions represent community consensus. If you disregard them, you disrespect the community. The template instructions clearly say not to abuse the retired template; there are reasons for that. If that no longer represents community consensus, change it; until then, take it seriously. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not mean as a disrespect to anyone. No one with whom I actually interacted in the project complained about this. But that's fine. I am not going to use the template "retire" any more, even if I actually retire from the project. End of story. Do not waste your time, please. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes: what's your plan for "I am no longer very active in the project…" text at the top of User:My very best wishes? It appears inconsistent with Special:Contributions/My very best wishes. —Sladen (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am not longer very active by my standards. Do you suggest that I should contribute less or that I should actually retire? Fine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple warriors at Talk:Skyfall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A running dispute has got out of hand at Talk:Skyfall. It boiled up when several editors started pushing against one guy in particular, Thewolfchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), trying to delete or sideline a comment he made. A quick look at the page history shows the main battle. One of them has reported their victim at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Thewolfchild_reported_by_User:Cassianto_.28Result:_.29 but they are as bad or worse because they are attempting to change his comment and also abusing him on his talk page. The main ones are:

• SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the main talk page warrior at the moment.
• Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - worst abuser of Thewolfchild's talk page despite being asked repeatedly to stop.

There has been other bad behaviour around this ongoing discussion, such as these and other participants pushing at opposing editors on their talk pages: let me know if you want more diffs. Please can somebody take a look and see what can be done? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI I informed them of this discussion here and here and they both promptly deleted the notices here and here.

And here is SchroCat pushing against me on my talk page, on the basis of this apparently unforgivable reversion.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and just to 'fess up front, TWC and I have also met before - I came over following a request to help out with this, some days ago. I am not the only one who tried to help settle this mess, see the third row in the table at Talk:Skyfall#Shortcut. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just clarify, we have not "met" in person. we had collaborated on another article in the past. - ^theWOLFchild 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Users: Cassianto and SchroCat

Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I am currently experiencing multiple problems with these users. First, Cassianto is repeatedly removing my comments from an article talk page. He did this a few days ago - diff - but I let it go. Now he's doing it again, again and again. Once he reached the 3RR line, he had his friend User:SchroCat come along and repeatedly hat my comment instead. SchroCat then templated my talk page (despite there already being a template there for the very same edits). Meanwhile, it seems that Cassianto is dragging me to WP:AN3. As it is, SchroCat is now insisting that my comments be hatted, here, here and here. He complains in his edit summary that I'm "edit warring", while at the same time adding his 4th edit hide my comments.

Also at issue is the fact that I asked Cassianto to stay off my talk page. A request he ignored, then ignored again and again. My understanding is that when people are asked to stay off a user talk page, they must abide that request.

Please note that Cassianto and SchroCat are self-admittedly close friends, as seen by the mutual glowing references they make to each other on their user pages. I believe this explains some of the motivation behind their mutually supportive edits.

I have since disengaged. These editors show no indication of doing so. I would just like all this disruption to stop. - ^theWOLFchild 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What do we do now? We both just reported the same incident. How do we merge them so links aren't broken? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've taken care of that by making this one a subthread of the other.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks from me as well. - ^theWOLFchild 14:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the two disruptive editors Steelpillow and Thewolfchild

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

As Samsara advised you yesterday, "always look in the mirror first please".

I disengaged from the discussion on the Skyfall talk page on 13 November, largely because I was sick and tired of the belligerent comments from the WC (I had become bored of asking him to refrain from sustained ad hominem comments throughout the conversation; I admit that had previousy been responsible for several similarly veined comments much earlier in the thread, which is the other reason for my disengaging. The last couple of days of comments running up to 13 November were asking him not to engage in further ad hominem comments). I returned today to give my opinion in the new straw poll and saw yet another attack on another editor, which I hatted. I initially did not see that he had been edit warring on the point in question, but this became apparent when I checked after he reverted the edit that both hatted the attack and where I left my opinion in the poll. I again stepped away from the page, except to check my edit had not been interfered with in any way – which both these editors have done, causing unwarranted disruption in the process.

The thread moved over onto the film project page and Steelpillow joined his friend in rather dubious battleground behaviour (the most recent of which was the uncapping of an ad hominem comment). I made a few comments there, again largely asking the WC to refrain from yet more ad hominem comments, which he ignored and continued in the same vein.

It's interesting to note that the article is currently locked after sustained edits of a highly suspicious nature from new SPA accounts and an IP-hopping sock. This huge upturn in these edits started at about the time the discussions moved over onto the film project page. I have no wish to engage further with either of these editors, and have only left comments today on their talk pages about their edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Boomerang I suggest that an administrator warns Steelpillow and Thewolfchild.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please check out the accuracy and context of any accusations before suggesting remedies. This has been a long and contentious discussion and many editors' haloes have slipped at one time or another. You might like to ping Samsara (talk · contribs) before making any hasty decisions, as they have been watching it recently without taking sides. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Steelpillow. It seems that I have several messages and requests with respect to this matter. I don't know if I'll be able to take care of them all today as I seem to have contracted the flu of the season. However, in case this becomes relevant in some way, let me give a quick summary of where I think this all comes from, and how it seems to, in part, have proceeded as of last night, as far as I'm aware at this point.

The original dispute was about how box office figures for Skyfall should be presented. It was, among other things, controversially discussed among the parties whether or not MOSNUM currently gives sufficient guidance to decide this particular case. Discussion was initially at Talk:Skyfall, was closed by an involved party who had directly participated in the discussion, and a second motion concerning the same issue was opened at the relevant WikiProject's talk page. I arrived to the conflict via RFPP, where accusations of disruptive editing via socks had been raised (these may not have been the exact words, I'm paraphrasing from memory), and eventually the edit war could only be reliably stopped by full protection. One party subsequently declared their willingness to abstain from further reverts, but Thewolfchild otoh left me a somewhat emotional message that made me uneasy about lowering protection at that time. I also left a message at Requests for Closures to ensure a proper admin closing in hopes this would avoid potential further animosity over this issue, remarking it would take a few days before the discussion might calm down and be ready to be closed (RfClo is currently somewhat backlogged as usual, so leaving a request before the closure is actually due is generally a good idea). Remember that the discussion at this point was already in two places, but at some point during the night, the second half of the new discussion at the WikiProject page was moved "back" to the Skyfall talk page. The case already gives me a big Vossstrasse vibe, but hope dies last... Will now look at the latest developments. Samsara 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Take time and get well soon. Wikipedia can live without me for a few days if wants to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld, you need to explain why you think Steelpillow needs warning if you want someone to look into it. I have blocked the other three parties for edit warring on Talk:Skyfall per the report at WP:AN/EW. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That was a poorly thought out decision Martin and I'm sure it won't be long before Schro and Cass are unblocked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the conduct in the talk page history, without considering who the editors were, I don't see how these blocks were unwarranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have reviewed User:SchroCat's unblock request and have found the block to be correct. HighInBC 16:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur. This looks like a well justified block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overprotection of Umpqua Community College shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Umpqua Community College shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was indefinitely semi-protected on 1 October, the day of the event, due to vandalism. It remains protected today, despite these facts:

• There has been very little news coverage of the story for some time. The perpetrator is dead; there will be no trial. The world has largely moved on.
• The story lacks the typical hot-button elements that tend to attract vandals six weeks after the fact. There is no significant race component (the perpetrator was half black and that fact is consigned to a footnote per WP:DUE). The cops did not kill an unarmed person; the perpetrator committed suicide. It's "just" a school shooting.
• Editing has slowed to a trickle. There have been 100 edits in the past 35 days, 18 this month, zero since 9 November.

I have at least one edit that is a bit too complicated for an edit request, so there is at least that much real need for unprotection, never mind the principle. I have had no luck with the protecting admin, Fuzheado, or at RFPP. Fuzheado has said this in support of unprotection, but he still hasn't lifted the protection and has ceased communicating with me about it. This is my last resort. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not for continuing discussions whether a page should be unprotected. Therefore, this issue is (probably) invalid. --TL22 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression this page was for anything requiring admin attention or action. I think protection inconsistent with the policy at WP:SEMI falls into that category after all other recourses have been exhausted. There must be some avenue of appeal, lest we assume that all admins are infallible.
"Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism...". That cannot be interpreted to mean that an article can remain protected six weeks after the vandalism occurred, during which time no significant further vandalism occurred, when there is a fair case made for unprotection at least on a trial basis.
I have been careful to follow documented procedure, going to the protecting admin first, then to RFPP (and then back to the protecting admin). I've done what the system requires of me, and I have not been disruptive with this. But if not here, where? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you register an account, and spend some time editing other articles, you will gain the privilege of editing semi-protected pages. It only takes four days and ten edits. You are currently involved in two other issues on AN/I[263][264], and have several hundred edits. Most users who are that heavily involved with Wikipedia register an account. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is not primarily about me; I'm merely the person taking the time to raise the issue. It's primarily about the article, the editing community, and Wikipedia protection policy. I certainly have no beef with semi-protection in general, only the over-application of it, and that only with respect to this one article. There have been two statements from admins about this, one supporting protection and one supporting unprotection. So far there has been one admin who said this protection is within policy. JJust one. The other one who has stated an opinion about that supported unprotection. If I could get one more admin to seriously consider my arguments and tell me we're within policy and common practice here, I would reluctantly drop this stick, forget about editing this article, and move on. So far, all I'm getting here is "wrong venue" and "register an account". 72.198.26.61 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

72.198.26.61, as there haven't been any edits to this article for the past 10 days, I don't think it is a hot topic any more and I have removed semi-protection for 24 hours, as a test. I will be monitoring the page and if vandalism is a problem, the protection goes back up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallelujah. Thank you, Liz. That's all I asked for. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional account, repeated copyright violations

No diffs to show as the pages have all been removed, but as seen on this user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Navyavenulal s/he is repeatedly recreating the same few pages using copyrighted material (generally large copypastas from the subject pages) to create promotional pages for obscure subjects/events, also violating WP:BLP rules in the process. Editor has received multiple warnings.JamesG5 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added information about copyright written for new editors on their talk page. Draft:Pratibha prahlad is heavily promotional but the subject looks notable. Perhaps post to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and see if a collaborator can be found? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a copyvio, I'm trying to figure out from where. The subject is notable though, passing both GNG and ANYBIO. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The notability comment was referencing another page (Alisha Anand) that the same user has created twice that was deleted on lack of notability, not about the repeatedly recreated Pratibha prahlad page. JamesG5 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I found a couple sentences that could be reworded to avoid semi-close paraphrasing of one of the sources but no outright copyright violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Scientology vandalism

Leah Remini was vandalized by Scientology on 7 November 2015[265] and nobody noticed for nearly two days.[266] This is just one incident, but this is a BLP and we know that this page will be the target of repeated vandalism and POV pushing by Scientology for at least the next few years, so can we please put it under pending changes PC1 protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think people with some familiarity of Scientology conflicts should just watchlist the article and deal with such edits. PC seems like overkill at the moment and we shouldn't do stuff like that preemptively. It's a high profile article so it shouldn't be difficult to keep enough eyes on it. I'm surprised that one slipped through for 2 days. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a bad call to take action before there's really been any issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated edits/reverts by User talk:M.starnberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has also repeatedly implied some sort of link between me and Pincrete, either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; see eg [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273]. He's been asked by multiple people to stop and to WP:AGF several times, or to take it to WP:SPI (or to the appropriate venue if he alleges some other sort of user misconduct); he's refused to do either, claiming that we must be using a VPN and therefore a SPI would be useless. Throughout this, he's asked me if I'm utterly biased and corrupt, leaped to accusing me of lying repeatedly whenever there's a disagreement about the sources, repeatedly accused me of bias in a hostile tone, and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing SYNTH and OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But those follow right after. I mean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reply is on the article talk page. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitary section break

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

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

User:Kalman613

Beginning with this edit on 04:06, 15 November 2015, User:Kalman613 has repeatedly[274][275][276][277][278] inserted POV and LIBEL into the article on Yeshiva Toras Moshe over my reverts[279][280][281][282]. After my first revert, I engaged him in conversation on the talk page[283] and he agreed to adhere to neutrality[284], but he has continued to insert non-neutral and libelous content from the blog of one of the faculty members who is "dedicated to arguing with Modern Orthodox positions" (Yeshiva University is a Modern Orthodox institution). I believe there is no place for this attack on Yeshiva University in an article about a different yeshiva, and I also question the inclusion of the blog as a reliable source. At this point, we have reached 3RR. I am not reverting his changes, but am asking for a block of the user so the page can be salvaged and the POV and LIBEL removed. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not seeing how this is non-neutral or libelous. It appears to be a dispute over the inclusion of some information. The user claims to be presenting information that is integral to the subject matter and at face value that does not appear to be unreasonable. They seem to be attempting to present the wording neutrally and they are correct in stating that a blog can be a reliable source for referencing the viewpoints or statements of the blog's owner. Reliability of sources and due weight of information can be discussed, but the user appears to be willing to communicate reasonably and compromise, and I don't think it's reasonable to come here asking for a block. "Libel" implies that you are reverting BLP violations and are thus exempt from 3RR yourself, but it doesn't look like you're actually removing libel. I'll protect the page so you two can focus on discussion and seek dispute resolution if necessary and resolve this through consensus but I don't think there's a justification for a block. Swarm ♠ 22:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. I would just like to make it clear that the material being added is an attack on Yeshiva University by a faculty member of Yeshiva Toras Moshe. To my understanding, this opposition belongs on the Yeshiva University page or the faculty member's page, not on this page. Isn't that right? Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Y'all should be able to come to a consensus one way or another for this thru some form of dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like what you really want to do is start a RFC on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yossimgim removing my comments from WP:ANEW

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had an exchange with this user to point out that they had made incorrect claims about another editor's edit summaries in an edit warring report, and filed an incomplete report. This wasn't well received.

Very shortly after, the user claimed I was "clearly wrong" on a talk page they had never edited before. Interpreting this as possible WP:HOUNDING, I left a note to that effect.

However, the user reverted me, and subsequently yelled at me to "GET THE HELL OUT" of their report and calling me a "childish disgrace".

I left another note to tell admins what had happened, but anyway, Samtar restored my version. In a subsequent exchange with Samtar, the user grossly misrepresented my statements (check the actual diff if you like...).

Please deal with this. I am comfortable neither with being hounded nor with being reverted when trying to report issues to administrators.

LjL (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A note: the first two edit summaries you posted do not correspond to the actual edit summaries in the respective diffs, which do not indicate reverting. You also reverted 3 times in the span of the 24 hours, with more reverts outside of that span, and I don't see an attempt to solve the dispute on the talk page.Yossimgim (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The above is just parroting of the note I left you at WP:ANEW which started this incident. What on earth do you think you're doing? LjL (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should incorrectly state what the edit summary was like you did above. It could be construed as an attempt to lie. It's also hard to see whether they were in fact reverts, when you did not provide a version being reverted to. How about filing a proper report? Yossimgim (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: Check if LjL is a WP:Sock puppet of the reported Debresser by me here. Yossimgim (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yossimgim: This admin is telling you to stop messing with LjL's posts and making spurious sockpuppetry accusations or else you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And nothing happened because your (LjL) flawless report has nothing in it worthy of banning. Good for you LjL spending your precious time on those 12 lines. Yossimgim (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Yossimgim for a week after this silliness. I think we're done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring report has been closed by me with no action. Yossimgim, LjL brought up valid points. To reiterate, do not delete another editor's posts and imply they're a sockpuppet just because you don't like what they're saying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And Yossimgim has now been blocked by Ricky81682 for continuing in a similar vein. Good block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. Would it be appropriate if I added some kind of "blocked user" notice on their signature for this edit as I find it an entirely spurious way to sway consensus on that talk page? LjL (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL, not really. That kind of tag is usually reserved to highlight socks. Posts are sometimes made to explain why an editor previously heavily involved in the discussion has stopped posting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think it's necessary. I responded on the talk page myself though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, not a big deal: I think it's pretty transparent to anyone looking at my response on that page what happened, anyway. LjL (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page access needs removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

The user Davin1134 may need their user talk page access removed; they are already indef blocked but are editing their user talk page to call admin "dumb" and "morons". 331dot (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a broad-based comment such as that is justification for removing talk page access. I hope there's more to it than simply the last couple comments I saw.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an indef blocked user should be using their talk page to insult anyone, generally or broadly. If that's all they are going to do (since they are blocked) without a block appeal on their page, then they don't need access to it. Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Urquhartnite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has made a number of disruptive page moves and move proposals today. In the related discussions it is personally abusing other editors. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but I am not going to raise to your bait ... you have been more or less pointlessly hectoring or reverting my edits all day, today! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which of the reverts do you think was "pointless"? Was it the one where you deleted a whole article without any discussion whatsoever? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So?! Where are the citations for the article?! "Original research" is also alright, is it?! Anyway, I was just about to go into nominating the page for dismembering, or, merging, with different articles, when all this kicked off! Anyway, I am a Yorkshireman (and I am also disabled), and I bloody tell it like it is! What do you take me for, a Scottish Calvinist minister?! Phew! Anyway, ta-ra! Still not raising to it! I am sure you are just trying to flirt with me, somehow! Bring out the mistletoes then, I say! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

While a bold redirect is not necessarily a mistake in every case, there were 9 citations given in the article text that you deleted. More citations would be a good thing, but it would seem odd to describe a whole article as original research when it has 9 perfectly good citations. You might want to consider discussing big changes to articles on their Talk pages beforehand. You might also want to consider that if you make big edits, then there is a high chance you will be reverted. This does not constitute "hectoring" by others. Bondegezou (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talking about assuming good faith, my only encounter with Urquhartnite (as far as I remember) has been in this discussion regarding Kids_Company. Perhaps he and JRPG have a history of disagreement, but this seemed rather unnecessary to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a surreal encounter with Urquhartnite at Talk:Camila Batmanghelidjh#Merger proposal (Fereydoon Batmanghelidj) where they seemed to be trying to make a weird kind of personal attack - note the reference to painkillers. They did something similar(?) to another user in the following thread Talk:Camila Batmanghelidjh#CBE forfeiture. I think some sort of health issue may be resulting in eratic behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A similar lack of AGF appeared recently when Urquhartnite raised an RFC decrying an article as "Possible hoax or hoaxes", arguing from such original research of their own as 2. As long as the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is and remains married to [HM] Queen Elizabeth II, there is and can be of course NO separate "Household of [The] Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", so-called, as such, I don't think! I don't think that, that it is actually possible to have two separate households for man and wife married to each other, do you, User:Miesianiacal, do you think?! [285] NebY (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Surreal" is a good way to describe an interaction with this editor. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess all I can offer here is my own experience with this editor: A few days ago, Urquhartnite did not take kindly to my revert of his/her move of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh to List of titles and honours of the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. First was a somewhat normal remark on my talk page, though it asked me to supply British sources only, no Canadian. But, then came a rambling message full of ad hominems directed at me, and then another. Then a sarcastic barnstar, plus two "thanks" for my removal of his/her diatribes. I asked for this individual to stop, but they posted at my talk again and again (another incoherent block of text). My second request for him/her to cease posting at my talk seemed to get the message through. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Sounds like a case of "Don't edit while under the influence of drugs, prescribed or otherwise." Some of those talk page posts are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've finished reading Urquhartnite's posts at the Royal Households of the United Kingdom's Rfc & at Miesianiacal's talkpage. This seems to be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, per Blackmane's concerns of possible drug usage. I found Urquhartnite's posts rather difficult to understand. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the closing lengthy attack on another editor's integrity[286], based on Google searches for that editor's activities outside Wikipedia, was clear enough and unacceptable, even when padded with specious disclaimers.[287] NebY (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Point #11 was later removed by Urquartnite after another editor pointed out that it was an attack or at the least was casting aspersions against another editor. Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Urqartnite didn't remove their attack - it was another editor that commented it out.[288] NebY (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we didn't really need anyone else seeing that rubbish. Thank goodness that brief unpleasant episode is over. DBD 15:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked this editor after identifying suggestive and sexist posts to the talk pages of two women editors with whom he has had no prior interaction whatsoever. Those edits, in addition to the problematic interations above, strongly suggest an editor who is unable to interact appropriately with other users. Risker (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of this, Risker. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Pity. I'd wanted to ask him if he ever Urked by day. Anmccaff (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chandrala

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User_talk:Vin09#Regarding_conflicts_with_page_Chandrala gives more info where the other user moved pages and made a mess. Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal and Chandrala, Gudlavalleru mandal‎ were the original pages, the user moved and pasted on one page where the talk page contents were not moved like here. Please check the article talk pages as well where I placed a requested move. FYI, Chandrala,_Mylavaram_mandal is located near Gudivada and the other near Vijayawada. He created two more pages Chandrala, Near Gudivada and Chandrala (Vijayawada). I request you to move Chandrala, Near Gudivada -> Chandrala, Gudlavalleru mandal‎ and Chandrala (Vijayawada) -> Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal. Please notice Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal talk page says Talk:Chandrala, Near Gudivada. So, please go thourgh talk pages as well.--Vin09 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Who's the admin that untangles these page move messes? Anthony Appleyard? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Done moved Chandrala, Near Gudivada -> Chandrala, Gudlavalleru mandal‎ and Chandrala (Vijayawada) -> Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sławomir Biały keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Slawekb / User:Sławomir Biały keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus.[289][290][291][292][293][294]

Warning: [295] (User talk:Slawekb is a redirect) Edit after warning: [296] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I replied to the message you left on my talk page. I'm rather confused why this is being escalated to ANI. Could you explain a little more clearly what's wrong with the edit? I've responded to your message in a little more detail on my user talk page. But, as far as I know, in this edit summary, you helpfully suggested that I should "check to see if MEDRS actually says that". So, I checked MEDRS, and replaced the offending passage with a direct quotation from that guideline. I would have thought that this satisfied your objection there. But your objection is unclear, since you haven't really explained yourself at all. Sławomir
Biały 02:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your changes, as should be obvious to you by the many comments on the talk page disagreeing with you. On reflection, I should not have attempted to salvage the portion of your change that there seems to be a consensus for, nor should I have attempted to explain why I thought your edit was wrong in my edit summary. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your edits. You need to get consensus for them on the article talk page. Changing a major Wikipedia guideline is a big deal, and you need to go to the talk page, explain what you intend to do, and ask if anyone objects. Your insistence on editing the page without first seeking consensus for your changes is why you are at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editing a guideline without consensus is generally frowned upon, but...as far as I can see, Slawekb simply reworded the sentence in question without actually changing the meaning of it. While even that should be done with care, I really don't see him/her as having done anything wrong. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page as well as the multiple editors who have reverted Slawekb all agree that the changes did indeed change the meaning. In particular, the changes[297] applied WP:MEDRS to "scientific matters" despite the clear consensus of the Wikipedia community that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical matters and WP:SCIRS applies to scientific matters. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you actually raised the point "WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical matters and WP:SCIRS applies to scientific matters" after I made the edits that you're complaining about. Indeed, the diff you just linked to was two hours after I posted an explanation on the talk page, and there was no objection on the talk page prior to the edit. Furthermore, I hadn't even heard of WP:SCIRS, until you brought it up just now. At any time, you could have made this point on the discussion page. You could have raised this issue before I even edited the guideline! But instead, you opted to issue vague but threatening edit summaries, "warnings" on my user talk page, and now an apparently gratuitous ANI report. WP:AGF much?

"The consensus on the talk page": where is this consensus you speak of? There is a discussion on the talk page, but not until recently is there a discussion of MEDRS versus SCIRS, which is now (apparently) the subject of your complaint. I find it hard to imagine that it is in any way reasonable to ask for administrative sanctions against someone that was unaware of comments made after the fact.

"Your insistence on editing the page without first seeking consensus for your changes is why you are at ANI" As far as I can tell, I'm at ANI because you started an ANI complaint rather than attempt to resolve things in a less confrontational way, through discussion on the talk page. Indeed, I had explained all of my edits on the talk page, while you apparently couldn't be bothered to clarify yours until after starting an ANI complaint. Since when is ANI the first stop for dispute resolution? You know better than that. But this edit certainly suggests that you have no interest in pursuing editing in a cooperative and constructive manner. I've no idea why you have made it your apparent mission to persecute me, but this just seems like mean-spirited bullying for its own sake. Sławomir
Biały 07:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My advice would be to simply ignore this nonsense. You have better things to do. Don't feed the trolls. YohanN7 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Slawekb, you weren't "discussing things on the talk page". You were discussing things on the talk page while at the same time repeatedly editing the guideline and being reverted. I asked you to stop doing that, you refused, and so here you are at ANI. The personal attacks above make it clear that you have no intention of stopping, and thus my asking ANI to stop you was the right decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I have no idea why you seem to believe that this edit was against any talk page consensus. At the time of that diff, here was the status of the talk page. There's no discussion there of MEDRS versus SCIRS. I don't see any objections there of any kind to going forward with an edit. I waited a few hours, and made a bold edit. That edit was reverted, comments were made, I made a new edit, trying to build consensus for a new version. This is covered in policy as a valid way to build consensus. It is absolutely distinct from disruptive editing. For example, in this revert, you asked me to check what MEDRS said. So I did just that, and replaced the sentence in the article with the direct quote from MEDRS. If this was not to your liking, you should have been clearer on the talk page. That's why we have talk pages, and aren't limited to conducting our communication through tweetlike edit summaries. You had ample opportunity to do so. I even, politely, asked for clarification on my own user talk page. But instead your first edit to that section of the talk page was a notice of this ANI thread. And your reply to my request for clarification and engagement was a curt refusal to discuss further. It's hard to see that as being conducive to a constructive editing environment. Certainly one editor here doesn't seem to be showing much indication of a cooperative spirit. Sławomir
Biały 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

It is clear that further discussion will be fruitless. I request that an uninvolved administrator examine the evidence and take action, or to determine that no action is required and close this report --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article/AfC history merge needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Please can someone help with the mess caused with moving Blackstar (David Bowie album) to Draft:Blackstar (David Bowie album) and restore the article history? I've asked the page mover to raise a discussion about this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? I'm trying to figure out the end point here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything is together at the main space page now. Decide how you two want to resolve it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actions of Rdn1979

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rdn1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an advertising-only account pushing spam links for a hotel in Southern Africa. I have tried to explain WP:NOTADVERTISING to no effect. Notification posted on his talk page as required. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree completely - I am not an advertising account. I am a human being - my name is Robert Nienaber - I have held posts on the Hospitality Association of Namibia executive committee and have operated within the Namibian Hospitality Industry for the last 10 years. Hence I believe that the contribution that I was trying to make was valid and I did not put the link back after Phillip removed it.

Rdn1979 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's pretty evident that you're here to promote particular commercial interests. As such, I've blocked you, deleted your article and reverted your spam. Max Semenik (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Swarop9 made legal threats at User_talk:Swarop9#November_2015_5. User_talk:Vin09#Regarding_conflicts_with_page_Chandrala is the conversation which he started though after the issue was resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chandrala. The user moving my talk page contents unnecessarily as well.--Vin09 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: Please do not mislead by manipulating context according to your convenience.I have clearly mentioned that I do not have any concern apart from you troubling other contributors by your arrogance and childish behavior. тєנα ѕωαяσσρ вєzαωα∂α●•ツ 13:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Vin09, please provide diffs instead of entire pages. Jeppiz (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: it was the diff & diff2.--Vin09 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Please go through "please don't delete any articles without discussion" section of (talk) page. Additionally you can check my (talk) page too. You can check how he is giving unnecessary warnings to users. Because of his manipulation skills, one of the admin has raised warning against me and reverted it when he got to know that he has wrongly issued warning by listening to Vin09. Vin09 is threatening who ever comes in his way by issuing warnings and threatening users that they will be blocked for editing.

The thing which the user referring was this edit, which I had explained User:Oshwah to wait for the WP:ANI to be solved regarding page moves, that was not false.--Vin09 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again this is a misleading act by Vin09. As I have clearly said that the user is troubling many users (which is evident from his talk page). He is hiding/reverting changes related to concerns raised by others against him.

Vin09 has moved my edit of section "please don't delete any articles without discussion" to a section named "New section" you can refer that for more information. Vin09 is troubling users with giving wrong warnings and distorting many wiki pages with limited knowledge he has about that particular topic. He might be doing it "Purposefully" as he might be in a hurry to get benefited from Wikipedia. This kind of dangerous edits will distort wiki pages and wiki may loose its charm by arrogance showed by users like Vin09

Swarop9 did indeed make an inferred legal threat here and here. I have warned them of this. @Swarop9: I would recommend removing any mentions of legal action samtar ^{t} 14:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks Samtar, will remove the terms. But Vin09 is irritating contributors with his behavior and issuing warnings and threats of blocking edit rights. It is evident from his talk page.

Understood Swarop9, I'm sure an admin with have a look into the behavior of everyone involved. Also, as a side note, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ (although, your sig does not link to your user/talk -pages?) samtar ^{t} 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I've moved the section to New section, as because he was writing the content in another users section. So, for legibility I've added a heading what's wrong. For more info, can have a glance at this, how the user undid my talkpage revisions.--Vin09 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

At face value, I can't see anything wrong with that Vin09 samtar ^{t} 14:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes samtar in the beginning, by seeing disastrous edits made by Vin09 I thought that I might be wrong. But after seeing his behavior with other users on his talk page, I have understood that he is doing that (giving warnings etc.,) to everyone who alter/revert his changes, which might not be constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarop9 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue regarding Chandrala page was resolved at this very page, then the user wrote on my talk page with a warning. Can check which of the user had first say. He started commenting and added words like arrogance and ignorance' and that's the reason I had issued a warning to stop it and be civil towards other editors. After that these threats.--Vin09 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again this is misleading act by Vin09. I have mentioned in above statements that, problems does not belongs to any particular topic or article. I have related all the words mentioned by justifying your acts. I have got to know how you are behaving with contributors by going through your talk page. Request you to please bear with community. Giving false warnings will annoy users in return to their positive contributions. Hope you can understand this. Be precise, polite with community. Community deserves it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarop9 (talk) 15:07, November 20, 2015‎ (UTC)

I never mislead anyone, all the edits are clearly stored. Finally, I say the admins will have a glance at it.--Vin09 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Sure, Remember that wrong warning has been reported against me and it has been revoked by Admins after understanding the scenario. Swarop9 (talk) тєנα ѕωαяσσρ вєzαωα∂α●•ツ 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Swarop9 has now removed the legal threats in this edit as per recommendation, thank you samtar ^{t} 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Swarop9: please adjust your signature to comply with the link requirement so that others may follow the links to communicate with you. Thank you,
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For Sure :) Swarop9 (talk тєנα ѕωαяσσρ вєzαωα∂α●•ツ 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is this resolved now to everyone's satisfaction? If so, can probably close with a purple box so people don't have to keep reading through it. Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and inappropriate admin only edit status for List of massacres in Yugoslavia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Peacemaker67: has engaged in bad faith editing, refusing to seek consensus until after making his edits and deletions, edit warring, de facto ownership (serious issue), unilateralism, etc. He also threads the truth to his own designs. He claims I did not respond to his claims regarding the quotes by Dr. MacDonald, which he initially welcomed (saying "bravo"), but in fact I did not know what to say and ultimately let his deletions regarding that point go unchallenged.

I do not know if he sought page protection for the article in question or if it was a good faith admin call by @TomStar81: but admin-only editing has effectively sealed the article in question (List of massacres in Yugoslavia) at @Peacemaker67's preferred and biased narrative, which is unfair and antithetical to the principles of this encyclopaedia. I have sought consensus and accomodation, and yet @Peacemaker67 has been essentially rewarded with his editorial narrative being locked in for the next six months or so. There is no need to have the article protected in such a way. What is needed is for @Peacemaker67 to be either temporarily banned from editing this article or, at minimum, subject to 0RR. Having had my edits undone unilaterally (while I was asleep --I am on New York time, so it's not "you snooze, you lose", which has never been a guiding principle of Wikipedia as far as I know, anyway), I request the admin only editing be lifted so I can make the necessary corrections/redos, otherwise @Peacemaker67 is effectively being rewarded for his overbearing and intolerable chauvinism, which was brought to the attention of ANI only yesterday. Please see the following: ([298], [299], [300], [301], [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315]). Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 14:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The page protection was appropriate, if a little long side. Perhaps The Wrong Version was protected, but that happens at least half the time.

You are engaged in a garden-variety content dispute. Your best next step would be to seek a third opinion on the article talk page, or perhaps make a request for comment. Seek the input of other editors to gain a consensus for your revisions. Once things have settled down, the protection can be lifted. It's a slow process, but it usually works. Editors at the dispute resolution noticeboard can help. HiDrNick! 14:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: This is the second and nearly identical filing brought by the same user in two days [316]. To the OP: Please review the closure of the previous filing and cease bringing these content disputes to ANI, lest you be hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. Use WP:DR instead. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Logos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Logos insists on refactoring Talk:The Law of One (The Ra Material) in a manner that affects the flow of the thread in an ongoing discussion. Seeking input there from an administrator. Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To be more specific, he is attempting to move this edit by User:Salimfadhley that begins "The subject being debated here..." to follow a comment in which it clearly was not intended to reply. Thanks. - Location (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments are not so important, however I am more concerned by the general pattern of single-topic advocacy by one user. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest any admin (including edjohnston) to internalize Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators (especially, the clauses 3 and 5; if not properly handled, twisted judgements can lead to desysopping), before wikilawyering me about WP:refactor without mastering WP:TPO sufficiently. Logos (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Prior to your refactoring, Alexbrn's comment "WP:NBOOK is a guideline, but even so..." was directly responding to you in the thread and Salimfadhley's comment "The subject being debated here..." was not responding to you at all. After your refactoring, you have Salimfadhley comment responding to you and you have Alexbrn's starting a new thread entirely. WP:TPO states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." What part of "you should stop if there is any objection" do you not understand? - Location (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we assume good faith in the matter of Logos's edits of my comments. I suspect that he truly believed that they were directed at him when this was in fact not the case. But please Logos - take this as a sign that your actions are raising concerns amongst your fellow editors. If your behavior is being discussed here something may be going wrong. Please take a deep breath think hard before writing your next response. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Salimfadhley, you must be new here. IAR-ing, giving opponents the benefit of the doubt, speaking reasonably and totally failing to inflate disputes to the highest possible degree--I'm not sure if you're more likely to be the first unanimous "Support" candidate for ArbCom, or to be run out of WP-town on a rail. You surely are destined for better things than the drahma pages. (Seriously: impressive levels of reasonability here. It's good to see. It's RARE to see, as well.) GJC 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Still at it

Logos is continuing to make this change.[317][318][319][320][321][322] I am concerned as I think it misrepresents my contribution, which was a direct response to Logos and not a new sub-thread as their edit makes it. Can we get some admin input here please? Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I alerted Logos that the edit warring (refactoring nine times) needs to stop (diff). Logos did not explain why their edit should stand and reverted my warning in a way that suggests admin intervention is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

problem IP editors on Gilded Age article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The same edit has been done 3 times on Gilded Age, and reverted three times by me and another editor. The IP editor inserts unsupported text that is opposite to the cited text on per capita income. Two different IP addresses are used. First instance https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilded_Age&diff=prev&oldid=689597873, second instance https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilded_Age&diff=690071200&oldid=689724844 and third instance https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilded_Age&diff=691561769&oldid=691354486 . I put a notice on both IP address talk pages suggesting more productive edits, to no positive effect. As requested above, I am putting the notice that I am posting here, hoping an editor can block these IP addresses from this article. It is getting tedious to revert, and there is the risk that someone will read the incorrect information before it is reverted, and believe that to be true, when it is false. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I endorse this complaint: Prairieplant is right. We have a subtle vandal who takes an important historical article and deliberately reverses its well-established facts in order to trick lots of users. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for one week. Protection requests can also be filed at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Giano's conduct on ACE candidacy pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Giano's behavioral on my candidacy page has been sub-optimal to say the least. Besides repeatedly insisting that admins shouldn't be involved in any off-wiki communication (even when it's necessary to avoid WP:OUTING,) in this diff he changed my answer in a meaingful way. An Inquisitorial system is a system, court or court type body making the final decision is also responsible for making findings of fact. This is in contrast to an adversarial system, where two bodies present their own evidence in front of an impartial finder of fact (generally a judge or jury.) By wikilinking my comment to inquisition, Giano was making a significant change in meaning to my answer to someone else's question, and one that made me look a hell of a lot worse since the inquisition doesn't exactly hold a great reputation. Would someone mind either blocking Giano until either the questioning period is up or he's agreed to stop intentionally subverting my candidacy page? I'd ask him myself directly, but from past memory he's asked me not to comment on his talk barring necessary notices. I'll notify him immediately after I post this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Giano, that "inquisition" diff was a bit pointy, a bit too pointy. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps, but Kevin Gorman fails to mention that Giano's edit summary was "please revert if this wasn't your meaning". He's been reverted and hasn't restored the wikilink, so of course no one is going to block him. WJBscribe (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Who cares! He had no business editing a candidate's answer. Period. BMK (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• No one would know if their statements had been changed and people shouldn't have to police that. If he were going to old talk pages and doing that, that would be blockable as disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• The nature and context for the change (given the extremely hostile and confrontational tone of Giano's questioning and comments there) makes it impossible to accept that he believed it was what Kevin meant or that the edit could have had any intent beyond either insulting Kevin or making him look bad; nobody would actually call for an "inquisition" system, and it strains belief to the breaking point that Giano would suddenly decide to make a helpful clarification to the words of someone he had just confronted in that tone. That being the case, I'm inclined to say that his edit summary makes it worse, not better, since it's effectively an additional insult (ie. "oh, surely you really meant you wanted the system to be an inquisition, right?") --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• A very good point, with which I agree. BMK (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's beyond being pointy. It's intentionally changing a candidate's answer to something I guarantee Giano knew I did not intend, in an intent to deceive anyone who noticed the change before I did. It's behavior that would be pointy anywhere, but should be categorically unacceptable at ACE. Drawing arbcom closer to it's original mandate as an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system would reduce arb related drama - it's inappropriate for Giano to edit my answer to imply I want to turn arbcom in to the Inquisition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• I fail to see any reason why any editor should change the answer of any candidate in any way, including to add links or correct grammar or spelling. If there's a problem, point it out to the candidate, who can fix it or ignore it, as they wish. Those are their answers, and should not be subject to editing. Giano is smart enopugh to have figured that out for himself without anyone having to say it, so it's completely impossible to AGF here. BMK (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest changing the title here to "Conduct on ACE candidacy pages". I don't believe that referring to editors as "trolls" no less than 6 times in one response is optimal either.[323] — Ched :  ?  00:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Giano has no busy changing candidate's statements. If he wants to, suggest it but no one's comments should ever be changed on their behalf. I'd suggest a block but that won't happen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • At the very least, I would suggest that if he makes another edit to anyone else's comment - candidate or otherwise - on those pages, he should be blocked. That edit to Kevin Gorman's answer was blatant bad faith and pointy. But Kevin, Ched makes a very good point. You should spend as much time policing your own behaviour on those pages as you are that of others. Resolute 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Frankly, when someone is intentionally editing my answers to other people to make me look worse (and who can honestly deny that's the case here?,) the person doing so is trollng. Some who habitually trolls is, well, a troll. From Giano's suggestion that me not WP:OUTING people on-wiki is inappropriate behavior as an admin to him deliberately altering my answer to someone else's question to make me look worse, he's been trolling. AGF can only extend so far, and he's shattered that limit. Although I'd phrase it more delicately in a FoF, I think being willing and able to call out someone acting in bad faith is a critical ability of a good arb. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Frankly, it would be very difficult to make things worse for you. I don't agree with editing the comments of others except in extreme circumstances but, come on, this is really a personal issue. You don't like Giano, me, Corbett etc or anyone involved in the so-called Manchester Mafia (almost none of whom are actually in Manchester, as far as I am aware). You've already acknowledged somewhere (will find the diff if necessary) that you're not likely to succeed with your candidacy. Trout Giano, let it go. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Sitush, deceptively editing the comments of a candidate is more than a personal issue, regardess of whether or not the candidate and the editor get along. I've worked with you previously productively, and although I have found some of your behavior distasteful to the extreme in the recent past (like creating a biography to attack an editor you were in a content dispute over,) that really has nothing to do with Eric.Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• More lies, then, Kevin? Good luck with that. I am off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm, "lies"? I've seen people blocked for less, and I'm not not sure you've got the same Cloak of Unblockability that Giano and Eric Corbett seem to have. BMK (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• As I said, it won't happen. Too many defenders to make a difference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would suppose that most admins have come to the realization that if they block Eric Corbett or Giano, their Wikilife is going to become a living hell for a certain amount of time -- and who needs that?BMK (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear from Giano. An admission this was way out of line and a confirmation that it won't happen again. It was an act of deliberate aggression and a distinct policy violation. I don't think we can just let this slide. I think also at this point he should absent himself from Kevin's ACE discussion and his talk page, either voluntarily or by sanction. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Kevin's candidacy, this sort of behavior cannot be tolerated. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.