Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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 [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 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: [15] 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? [16] ? 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" ([17], [18], [19] as this user; [20], [21], [22] 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. [23]. 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. 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. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aryanprince

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [24] -- 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 [25] (it's in both versions). This is clearly personal abuse [26]. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS

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".[27] 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.[28] 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: [29],[30],[31],[32]. 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" [33], 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" [34]. 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)

User:Brewcrewer

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 [35] and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR [36]. 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)

COI and NOTHERE

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 [37]. 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 [38], 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: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. His own talk page his laden with editors spending time and energy discussing the article [51]. His continuous complaints and requests at the article talk page has been quite a time-sink, as well: [52]. 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 [53]. 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 ([54]): "...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: [55]. 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 [56] 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. [57], [58],[59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. 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" [65]. -- 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

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)

Proposal II

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)

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" [66]. 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</e>, 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.[67] —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)

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)

Proposed site ban for representatives of OMICS Publishing Group

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. English3023523 appears to be another OMICS spa. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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 ([68]). The dispute went to AE twice ([69], [70]), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly ([71], [72], [73], [74]...), and adjusted the wording based on input ([75]). 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 ([76]). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary ([77]). 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.[78] 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.[79] 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)

Blocks related to Neelix

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.[80] 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[81] 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[82] 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: [83]. 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 [84]

Of our five million articles, about a quarter million (222,000) are {{unreferenced}}, based on transclusion count [85]. 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: [86] 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 [87], 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. 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 - [88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]
2. WikiProjects - [106][107][108][109][110][111][
3. User talk pages - [112][113][114][115][116]

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[117][118], went to WP:RPP during a content dispute immediately after getting the page to his preferred version[119][120] made bad-faith accusations at WP:DRN[121] and made further sockpuppet accusations.[122] Also posted on the pages of multiple admins seeking a sympathetic one, including HJ Mitchell and Jehochman mentioned above, as well as Panyd.[123]

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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lembrazza and categories

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)

User:Widefox

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

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

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

The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded [124].

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

Latest summary is [125] at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)

Background is the with need to disclose "all contributions" (we are only talking about paid editing) "any paid contributions" per ToU Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration (Ɱ's misguided use of this outdated essay is helping us prevent others be misguided by it - by deleting it), Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction, WP:COI#Paid editors (history of WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, specifically [126]), Template_talk:Connected_contributor_(paid)#Drafts etc,.

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

In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but [127] summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved.[128] That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).[129] Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.[130]. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this [131].

"illegal harassment" really should not be used above [132] per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.

Do I have to put up with this [133] ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication [134]. Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" [135], Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." [136]. Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias (talk · contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?! [137] . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the terms of use actually say is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI [138] in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.

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

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

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

The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes [139] and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle [140] added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.[141]. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAYTALK

• Disruptive editing: WP:PAYTALK.
• WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk [142]. It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u [143]), then an hour later
2. Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor [144], undone [145] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing! This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit [146] (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAID WP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
  • Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
    • "...WP:Tendentious editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID
    • "...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts [147], ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
    • "...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
    • "...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
    • "...WP:Civility...": no

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

Widefox, you are way out of line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neelix resigned

FYI, for those involved with/following the saga.[148] Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Commentary isn't needed

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

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

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

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

Talk page archiving

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio on Radosław Sikorski

IP 203.184.61.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and user Mahitahi359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) paste on page Radosław Sikorski the copyrighted text [149] [150] [151]. 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 [152], [153], [154], [155]. So you got the classic trifecta of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated edits/reverts by User talk:M.starnberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[156]
• 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.[157]
  

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,[158] his reply was "Discuss it on the talk page".[159] 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,[160], 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[161] and again in article talk.[162] 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.[163][164] 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,[165] and made personal attacks on me, apparently referring to me as an "aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editor".[166] 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.[167] 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: [168][169][170][171], even deleting sourced text and replacing it with the unsourced text. Who finally added the citations? I did.[172] 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.[173][174] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Caidin-Johnson

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

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

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

User:Stargrl

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

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

Cristina Vee

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 [175] "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 [176] 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)

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 [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]. 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/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675374256&oldid=675373291

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/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/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/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/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/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/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)

example of what appears to be unmistakable synth TODAY. What is most worrying is that you don't seem to understand, or care about this, but just push 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)

Constant BRD violations and blankings

Ciphers00 keep ignoring BRD on every article the user is involved. On Paul the Apostle, the user introduced undiscussed and controversial changes [184] that three two different users reverted, but Cipher00 just reverts back, ignoring BRD and claiming no discussion is needed [185], [186]. Despite having been warned for their behavior at Muhammad already, Ciphers also perform undiscussed changes there, again ignoring BRD [187], [188]. 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 [189], [190]. 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/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 [191], then I [192], and thirdly Lindert [193]. 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.[194], [195], [196] 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 [197]. 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)

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

I am bringing a recent interaction with Rationalobserver (RO) (notified) here for discussion. During the interaction RO made personal attacks, assumed bad faith, attempted to further stir the pot by trying to drag other editors in, and made baseless claims against me of unethical behavior based on no supporting evidence whatsoever. Despite editors (other than me) questioning the foundation for her claims, she continued to behave in an aggressive and uncivil manner. Rationalobserver has had personal attacks removed in the past [198], posts with the potential for outing [199], 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” [200] for a personal attack on 1 Nov 2015.

In a discussion thread regarding the use of OTRS images in the Wikicup[201], she asked a series of questions to which I openly responded [202], and in detail [203]. A somewhat bizarre question about payment regarding the creation of currency images [204] led me to cautiously ask about the relevance [205]. The next reply included accusations, scenarios of people being stripped of awards, questions of "double dipping", and pinging all active and one former judge[206]. I told her that up to that point, I would have been happy to answer her questions[207]. With assumptions spiraling out of control, RO insinuated [208], inferred [209], and finally accused me of unethical behavior [210]. To further stir the pot, she pinged the contest's runner up looking for support [211].

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[212]. Her follow-up response demonstrated no insight whatsoever as she simply changed the direction of her attack [213]. This was followed a seemingly conditional apology on my talk page[214], additional blame directed at me[215] and striking of some (but not all) accusations[216]. More jabs[217], 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[218]. In the same edit she tries to back out of the whole discussion, and was called out for doing so[219]. I responded that she and I had a date at ANI[220] 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[221].

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 ([222]). 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 ([223]), 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 ([224]). I never said Godot was unethical, I said that it's unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs, and I stand by that as an accurate assessment of global consensus regarding the rules of competition. RO^(talk) 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"You have now inferred that I am acting unethically..." - "Well, yes. It's considered unethical for a professional to compete against amateurs."[225] 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 ([226]). 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[227]. Not only was this not done, but it was followed by additional insults[228]. 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. [229] Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: This was very poorly done, and not by the appropriate person. I don't find "In reviewing your posts, I have decided to block your (sic) for disruptive editing" to be a sufficient rationale for indef blocking someone. We seem to have forgotten we're dealing with a human being, one who perhaps has made some bad decisions or acted poorly, but who certainly doesn't deserve to be slammed and locked into a closet without the benefit of full explanation and discussion. For the blocking admin to claim they weren't already carrying around a personal opinion about Rationalobserver is ludicrous. Drmies and Ched should be ashamed of their "I like to be fucked" and "reach around" remarks, regardless of what films they were quoting. I'm agog at what kind of culture has developed here where it's acceptable to speak to people this way. This block should be undone at once, and consensus allowed to develop here for the appropriate action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't act so gullible and easy to manipulate. Those comments were made on a user talk page that RO barged in on and were not directed towards her but were meta-commentaries on the discussion. She's bringing this up to distract you from the real problem, like she's done ten-thousand times before. Wise up. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Get your facts straight, Viriditas. I started that thread you say I barged into ([230]). RO^(talk) 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • My facts are straight. I said you barged in on another user talk page, not a thread. You don't control what is discussed on other user talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

• 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)

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

Unblocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of possible admin actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

Just for the record it looks as if Ched quit Wikipedia. [231]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 16 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)

Anon 109.67.134.193

Resolved

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

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

Proposed topic ban on Jonas Vinther

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ==Why I have decided to leave Wikipedia==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, diffs.

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

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[232]

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.[233]

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: [234],[235],[236],[237].

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 [238][239] 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, [240], 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 [241] 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 [242]. 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 [243]. 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 [244] in which Jonas added detailed material on an SS officer who blackmailed the mayor of Belgrade into surrendering by threatening to have the city bombed with an edit summary praising that officer ("OFC KLINGENBERG, WOOOHOOOO"). Discussion on the talk page has noted that this material is also much too detailed for the top-level article on the SS, and I can only imagine that Jonas added this as he finds the officer admirable judging from the edit summary. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As you would have noticed had you look at the other edit summaries before the one in question, I had just finished writing HUGE sections on the Waffen-SS in Poland, France, Yugoslavia. The "WOOOHOOO" remark was celebrating I was finally finished for the day by adding the part on Klingenberg! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt that given there's no reason to have added almost a para on a single officer to this top-level article. On a related topic, the problems with Jonas' edits to the Horst Wessel article have also been noted above, to which I'd add the fact that he uploaded a photo of Wessel's killer with the rather POV title of File:Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933.gif, which is rather worrying in light of the anti-Communist and pro-Fascist stuff previously on his user page. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I only added emphasis on Klingenberg because the cited BBC source above did so. I only started improving Horst Wessel because of a suggestion by Diannaa; I have no strong feelings about him at all and would never have started editing his article otherwise. Lastly, the title "Mug shot of Albrecht Höhler, active communist member and the man who murdered Horst Wessel, 1933" was DIRECTLY CITED from Siemens 2013 and is a TEXT HE USES. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose block

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I haven't looked into it closely, the only thing I'm aware of is his creation of the article about the how-to magic book Totally Out of Control, which was merged into the author's article as a result of an AfD discussion. BMK (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

Increasing protection level duration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Redban (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol Justice

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

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

2.48.32.105

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

Deleting sourced materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP or hounding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lahiri Mahasaya page problems

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

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

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

Misbehavior by Semitransgenic

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

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

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

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

[245] [246] 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)

Imposter

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

Borderline threats

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

---

From a paid editor User:Mnoar are being made on my talk page here [247]. Happy to send the confirmation of the amount this person is paid by the company in question to any admin who pings me. It is available on https://projects.propublica.org/

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

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

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

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