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

Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the people, (WordSeventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), involved are still refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. This is obviously not an isolated incident, at least for WordSeventeen; they have been blocked for harassment before: [[1]] They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.dif here:[[2]] (for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have had issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Cursory looking can show obvious signs of WP:DISRUPT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT. Even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and making edits, they continue to ignore repeated attempts at discussion which is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen have been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like their trying to to illustrate their tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well. After filing the premature arbitration request, instead of making comment there, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same, if not improved articles, from when AfD was voted against before. His AfD was immediately declined [[3]], see there, and yet he refiled , see here,[[4]], with the exact same AfD proposal statement. He has done this in the past before as well, and was told not to do so. He has been violating the same policies over and over for vast stretches of time, exemplified here [[5]] and here [[6]]. Why has he not be sanctioned? It's an obvious pattern in behavior. Pages that illustrate their refusal to co-operate:

• [[7]]
• [[8]]
• [[9]]
• [[10]]
• [[11]]
• [[12]] (Reviews of a person? There are no reviews of "her".)
• [[13]]
• [[14]]

It was suggested to me to pursue moderated dispute resolution, but one of the requirements on that page is that the topics must have been discussed thoroughly on the talk page; this does not meet that requirement because they are refusing to talk about anything. I really feel like a topic ban is the only thing that will make them stop. WordSeventeen's persistence over such a vast span of time is disturbing. It also appears Zpeopleheart is calling me a bitch [[15]] WordSeventeen practically confessed to his improper behavior here as well : [[16]] The administrator Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also comments on this review page's history "Not done. I'm quite certain that my motivation in asking about this was and is preventative. You have acted quite disruptively and dishonestly in the past. As you say, your record is right there to see, so you must have known..." So again, this seems very cut and dry that his conduct is wrong, and the amount of hurdles I have had to go through just to ameliorate such an obviously horrible situation is irritating. SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) SanctuaryX, after a cursory look, I've placed warnings on the two editors who have repeatedly "warned" you - regardless of who is at fault, it's pretty clear that their actions are verging on harassment samtar ^{t} 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that neither Zpeopleheart nor WordSeventeen have used the talk page at CollXtion I despite being prompted to by SanctuaryX clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have prompted them on all the talk page articles CollXtion I, Allie X, and Catch (Allie X Song); Zpeopleheart only bothered to reply to the birth date question in Allie X after Karst began discussing it with me.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why has he not been sanctioned? Because, generally speaking no matter how many times I'm accused of being a block-happy fanatic, we're generally quite hesitant to sanction people. When I locked the pages, I wasn't really suggesting arbitration - just engaging on the talk places, bringing in people through appropriate noticeboards, and then coming back to another board if, after the solution doesn't resolve itself in the time the article is protected, the disruptive parties will find themselves having a hard time editing Wikipedia. WP:DRN was suggested by someone else in the arb request, but I wouldn't even suggest going that far. I'll make a comment on a relevant talk page, but if this is still an issue f complete failure to engage when the protection wears off, the disruptive parties will find themselves the blocked parties. Also, wrote this before taking a full look at the diffs involved, which I'll now do and potentially take action on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed that misquote; sorry. I never meant you were suggesting arbitration. I got ahead of myself.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen

I propose a topic-ban from all articles related to Allie X for User:WordSeventeen. His or her campaign to delete the articles is disruptive and has aspects of an obsession. The singer is referenced by multiple reliable sources and passed an Articles for Deletion nomination six months ago. So now the editor has again opened another AFD, arguing WP:TOOSOON, when that argument was already considered and dismissed, and then opened yet another AFD (3d nomination) while the second nomination is still pending. That is disruptive editing having aspects of an obsession. I was uninvolved until an ill-advised Request for Arbitration was filed and is in the process of being closed, but it is clear from that evidence that WordSeventeen is being disruptive and should be topic-banned.

• Support as proposer. Do I need to move this to the bottom of ANI because no one will read it up here? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. If he doesn't figure out how to behave reasonably well in the next week, a tban will just send him in to another area of ENWP to be a problem. He has the next week to shape up. If he doesn't, well... I no longer oppose a topic ban or a WP:CIR or WP:TE block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)\

This behavior has been going on since May, intermittently albeit. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my oppose - what I really meant is if he keeps doing the same stuff until I block him for longer and longer periods of time, or he'll voluntarily get the point and stop being an issue (with, which the rather stern warning issued, is the hopeful outcome.) Tbanning him from Allie X will throw him in to being a problem in some other part of the encyclopedia; he needs to either get on board and fix the problem, or get tossed off the ship. Hopefully he'll get on board and be a genuinely productive editor even re: Allie, but if he doesn't, I have no problem personally tossing him overboard. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I would hope if he did just go making problems elsewhere instead of just whomever requesting a topic ban at the new place, they would just try to get him flat out banned after seeing his previous history. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's slightly confusing that we use both 'block' and 'ban,' but I can indefinitely prevent him (block) from editing all articles by myself if he continues to be disruptive, unless another admin strongly disagrees. A ban is much harsher, more like a 'community endorsed indefinite block', requires more evidence of disruption, more discussion, etc. If he was tbanned from this area, I would either have to start following his behavior in another area to see if the disruption persists, or drop it (letting him potentially be equally disruptive in an area no one is paying attention to.) If he's not tbanned, I can just block him for increasingly long periods of time until he either gets the point or is unable to edit effectively permanently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense and either way sounds marvelous. Thanks for explaining. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as initial complainant. It should be noted that Zpeopleheart clearly shares the same ideas, as per his reasoning for the delete vote in the AfD. He filed an ANI for edit warring and he was sanctioned himself [[17]] SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support WordSeventeen has a history of harassment and hounding and it all seems to stem from him either not knowing when to stop or not wanting to stop: [18], [19], [20] [21], [22]. It should also be noted that with the last block for harassment, WS's permissions (rollback and reviewer) were revoked. From what I can see with this particular instance, a topic ban seems quite appropriate considering the circumstances (the proposer's note that WS seems to be "obsessed") as well as the user's history of disruption and inability to back off when advised to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC). Arbitrary break
• Support – I have filed a checkuser on Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen; I would be very surprised if they are different people. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oculi:Thank you for doing this. I thought the fact they shared the same tendentious views was odd, but with everything going on I did not want to be the one to make such an accusation. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose You guys might want to check around and do a few searches or ask Bbb23. Been done. Some of you editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also any further accusations against me with diff or concrete proof will be personal attack. Happy thanksgiving. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't notice, he made that request. We both noticed it didn't check out. Try to be civil. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: @Robert McClenon: I am on my phone so I can't easily tell, but someone has illicitly segregated WordSeventeen's response. I'll assume it was Zpeopleheart because he added a reply. This has messed up the voting for topic ban etc. Someone fix this please. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Zpeopleheart attempted to highlight a couple of things WordSeventeen said, possibly to call for a topic ban on SanctuaryX. I restored the original flow of the voting and comments. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to the editor's pattern of trying to blank, redirect and/or frivolously AfD this article, and the obviously retaliatory topic ban proposal below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

_

• Oppose and speedy close WordSeventeen (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If anything, your removal of your own harassment from my talk page at the same time as this seems like a confession. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And now, you're only furthering your ban because you can't even stay civil and neutral on the request for closure page.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for SanctuaryX

There is no way that consensus is going to be established to tban SanctuaryX, and, if anything, the discussion below provides valuable feedback about appropriate action in this situation towards other actors involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support and Speedy Close - I agree that obsessioni is a good topic t o be discussing but instead about the about the editor SanctuaryX. Regardng a pattern of disruption by SanctuatyX in the article set regarding the articls about AllieX and watched the back and fort between SanctuayX and the other one with a Z name something or other. Of course all those articles are still on my watch list from when I tried to edit them, but SancuaryX was so disruptive during that period of time since she had taken complete and final WP:OWNERSHIP of them it was really to tedious to even try to to edit the Allie X article. I would propose today SanctuaryX is a SPA. Practically all of her edits have been about all those articles with the exception of a few toke plant species artice. at this particular moment in time I only have a mobile. I will add the diff to all these points. Please note I am out of my regular town and on emergency military to act in response to the expected, and or possible bombings within the United state on the night before Thanksgiving. But I will respondmore fully when we stand down here in USA. So anyways, I kept seeing these edited and the articles popping up on my watch list and when I saw the first disruptive Ani pop up, I went ahead and read over it. I entered a comment on the ani. So I would say that me editing a group of articles months ago, and thanks to the obsession ally disruptive user sanctuary ally User:SanctuaryX who is continuing to show ownership and take over everything about definitely needs a topic ban on all AllieX, articles topics discussion or any other matters abount in or around the topic of the 'artist' Alliex, and or a WP:BOOMERANG . or any tother sanctions or blocks they may wish to apply to the editors account of Sanctuatryxxx. Thank you all, please have a wonderful American Thanksgivg. Zoe any other holiday you and your May celebrate. hoooooo RrrrrrrrrrAaaAaaHHHH. ---- peace to the world!!! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I admitted already my behavior wasn't the best. But you have no proof of any of this. Just please stop stirring up trouble. They can see where you've made these evidenceless accusations towards me before. And considering I have worked on many more plant articles at a scholarly level, than those related to Allie X, I am clearly not a "SPA." And even if I was one, as long as my edits are generally unbiased, it wouldn't matter. They saw how I behaved as well. This isn't a one way road. WP:STEWARDSHIPSanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Support a lengthy topic ban of three weeks toward user sanctuatyx due to the the fact as supported by her involve the in the alli x article with different editors over like a six month period The one looks to have apparently given up and did not try to edit the. Article any more. The n months later I tried to edit the same group of artles But due to the completely obsessive disruptiousor tenditios practices of SanctuaryX. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close - this topic ban proposal is clearly nothing but a retaliation for the one proposed against the nominator directly above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close per Ivanvector. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close Both of their grammatical/general English mistakes makes this even difficult to comprehend for me. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close – absurd suggestion. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart

See everything in above two sections involving this editor and WordSeventeen for more detail on his obstinately disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT)in addition to the following dif's and associated edit comments: [23], [24], [25]. Edit: And as you can see below, it's really quite impossible to show all the difs, much simpler just to look at history pages like this: [26] and to look at my talk page where he is continuously "warning" me.

• Support as nominator. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment umm not sure what you mean. Is this a new stick? or what? I just got back into town, been away for a while. So if you think I of all the in the a I above please provide the diffs and concrete proof from within the past 12 hours or so. Otherwise I will have to consider having you charged with a PERSONAL ATTACK. Did you not understand the rules and procedures here. Acting in good faith, I will give you one chance to apologize, we will call it a day, and I will leave all alone for a bit and let you work out your WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Have a great evening all! And remember I got 99 problems and this ain't no fun. Cannot we have peace on a holiday? A sort of detente. Peace Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack. You clearly aren't doing what is asked by many people. I wasn't overly nice at first, but I have been civil since even with your repeated poor behavior. I'm not sure where the communication here is failing, but it's clear you have issues. I am clearly not experiencing ownership issues. I repeatedly tried to advise you of Wikipedia policies, I tried to explain to you why what you're referencing doesn't apply or isn't true, and I tried to discuss it with you, and you failed on all three counts. I have no problem with people editing the page, only when people like yourself constantly remove things that are perfectly acceptable not by my standards, but according to Wikipedia itself. For you to come here and try to silence me on the ANI just adds to my case. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor is showing signs of being difficult/slightly disruptive, both here and on the article you've linked to. However, they above state that they will "leave all alone for a bit" - due to this I don't think a topic ban would be preventative anymore -- samtar ^whisper 20:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit is kind of vague; that could be minutes, hours, days, a week before they start being obstinate and tendentious again. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is vague - perhaps Zpeopleheart would agree to voluntarily leave the article alone for a set period of time, to allow people to chill out? -- samtar ^whisper 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty calm, do I seem particularly obscene or uncivil? @Samtar: And as you can see now, that a bit didn't even last a day.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't the first article Zpeopleheart has refused to actually discuss the changes they want to make. See the Black Lives Matter article history. They repeatedly reintroduced material that had serious issues (no citations, BLP claims, ect.) that was removed by multiple different editors. A talk page section was started after the second revert and they refused to participate. Refusing to participate in a collaborative project is a serious issue and the multiple articles they have done this on is a pattern of behavior. They claim to be dropping it and leaving it alone for a bit. However, the "for a bit" is what concerns me. Are they going to pick up right where they left off in a week after the holiday is over? There needs to be some assurances that this is going to stop and they are going to start participating in the discussions that people are asking them to participate in. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you search through the above sections, you'll see he has been sanctioned for edit warring before as well. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing more to say here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - clearly disruptive editing, repeatedly reverting to maintain their preferred version of an article, and failing to make any reasonable effort to discuss their issues on the talk page despite being pinged repeatedly. Multiple editors have tried to reason with this editor both to understand their weird view of neutrality, to ask them to expand on their rationale or provide any sources at all for their insistence that the subject must be viewed negatively or not at all, and to try to explain why this behaviour is disruptive including a fairly dire warning the last time this page was full-protected to prevent the same disruption they're continuing with right now. Competence is required; consensus is not optional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: After posting my comment above, Zpeopleheart has continued to try to push their own view on Allie X. They also posted a false warning on SanctuaryX's talk page claiming that they filed a bad AIV report [27] when SanctuaryX has not even posted to that page at all according to their recent contributions [28]. Their abuse of Twinkle to add pointless and false warnings to other editor's talk pages is purely retaliatory and needs to stop. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Ivanvector, and Stabila711. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The 2 apparently different editors Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen share an obsession with Allie X. WordSeventeen has taken it to afd twice (both snow keeps) and Zpeopleheart redirected it to Catch (Allie X song). Between them they have made 63 edits to Allie X, most of which are against the consensus at the article (ie all other editors there disagree with Z and W). Oculi (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note - Zpeopleheart has been blocked 36 hours for continuing to disrupt the Allie X article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Unarchived per request. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Given the totality of the user's behavior, including their ridiculous warnings on SanctuaryX's talk page and behavior on Allie X related articles, I am blocking the editor for six months. This block is not meant to supercede the community discussion above, as the block will lift in six months while a topic ban wouldn't (and the block may be lifted before six months if the user convinces me or another administrator that their disruption is unlikely to continue.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker and Paris-based articles.

Map of the Greater Paris Metropolis (Métropole du Grand Paris) and its 131 communes.

New Development

This has just taken on an entire new dimension. Outright canvassing forum members to target several Wikipedia contributors specifically.

English link: [29] - Original French: [30] - targeting 3 Wikipedians, posted on the 30/11/2015

English link: [31] - Original French: [32] - mentioning just one (yours truly), posted on the 30/11/2015

I got there by:

1. looking for sources for unsourced numbers that Der Statistiker and Minato ku had insisted were the 'right' ones (without providing sources) [33]
2. that turned up only two Google results:
   1. A post by Minato ku on the aforementioned skyscrapercity.com forum, citing (banned, but member since 2006) forum member "Brisavoine" [34] (fr)
   2. But more importantly, a post (most likely the one cited) by "New Brisavoine", member since 2007, on the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum [35][36] (en)
3. So, in the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum, reading a few pages ahead from the 'numbers' post, it seems that Brisavoine "knows" the London French correspondant for the French newspaper "Le Monde" - funny, the same one that interviewed Der Statistiker and I last year? [37][38]
4. And those maps look really familiar, just like the one Der Statistiker uploaded to Wikipedia (the one to the right), especially the oldest version [39]
5. So a google image search for that [40]...
6. ...turns up yet another forum, pss-archi.eu, where forum member "Brisa" had posted it [41]
7. And a google search for "wikipedia" and "paris" in that website ... [42]
8. ...turns up, right at the top of the list, our targeted-canvassing post; it had been removed (why is in the post itself), but Google still had a cached version. [43]

And, since it's relevent once again, the link to the canvassing from last year's meat-debacle [44](fr) [45] (en - gt): Brisavoine was probably already banned then, which is why it could never be proven that User:Der Statistiker was a member there.

What gets me most was the craftiness of hiding the targeted Wikipedians' names through posting their names in image... and how even those other forum members were lied to and WP:GAMEd to get them to help disrupt Paris articles.

Cheers, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerned and Canvassed Contributors

I'm putting these here because they are related to this case (not part of it, this is only about Der Statistiker) and are still registered wikipedians here. It is up to whoever decides here to decide to decide what they want to decide if they find the evidence acceptable. Apologies for the links, but it seems that skyscrapercity(dot)com has been blacklisted, so I can't post them directly, or the translated version - please use google translate (just paste the corrected url into the 'French' input field)

First off, perhaps it's useful to mention now that Der Statistiker is Hardouin, which sets this canvassing (and other bad behaviour) much farther back, but, in addition to the same trying to publish the same WP:OR and same 'tactical' disruptive behaviour, one tie-in (I can provide more) related to the above evidence:

Minato ku's first 'backup' appearance on the 2007-07-20 when Statistiker (Hardouin) was creating/publishing WP:OR for which he could not provide references (but was trying to preserve by reverting/edit warring all the same) : [46]

then Brisavoine (Statistiker) mentioning me in a skyscrapercity forum conversation with Minato ku on the September 22nd, 2007 : www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=284568&page=8#149.

www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=149#2962
In the link above, the canvassed contributors in the skyscrapercity forum thread (being instructed by Minato ku where to go and how to edit Wikipedia); they were:

Minato ku (who has made a few wikipedia edits between his 2007 first appearance until 2011, but returned in 2013 directly to the vote debacle, and has been 'backing up' Statistiker ever since [47]) - edit-warring & voting [48]

Sesto Elemento (most likely also Sesto92 - [49]) - edit-warring & voting [50]

Clouchicloucha - voter only [51]

Abdel-31 - voter only [52]

AvemanoBZH - voter only [53]

These are the votes they were called to: [54][55][56]

If anyone has any further questions or would like any further evidence, please feel free to ask. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Original ANI

Der Statistiker (and his www.skyscrapercity.com allies [57]) has, in all impunity to date, been disrupting editing to Paris-based articles since years now, and this is I-don't-know-how-many-th'd case opened against him [58][59][60][61][62], and many contributors, including administrator jmabel[63], expressed overwhelming support for a topic ban over a year ago [64].

Der Statistiker is particularly good at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia. Wikipedia's default 'assume good faith' is easy to abuse: for one example, he repeatedly creates false claims that look plausible on the surface so that, if an administrator takes only a quick look, they will seem legitimate. He then directs complaints to precisely those administrators who have taken his claims at face value in the past [65]. Concerning that last diff/complaint: I made my first real edits to the article (and I had announced my intentions on the talk-page well before) in a year on November 11 [66], and Der Statistiker, after a total absence of a year from the article, came a week after [67].

But that in itself was not really a problem at that point, until Der Statistiker replaced recently-edited (by SiefkinDR) article-relevent data with out-of-context data [68], and I edited that back into context (without removing anything)[69]: Der Statistiker reverted this with another false accusation (calling it 'starting a revert war') and, again, threatening admin intervention [70]. Again there was no rationale for this, even after SiefkinDR's protesting questioning [71], only an 'answer-sounding' non-sequitur...

...because the rationale for that, and everything from there on, was pure WP:POINT disruption: one of the skyscraper-forum members (who by now has been around long enough to be considered a real wikipedian), Minato ku[72] first edit on wikipedia in months is to remove a just-edited Paris-events paragraph [73], and the same day, reverts a just-edited entire section to a state last edited by Der Statistiker over a year before (under the edit summary 'reorganising')[74], and Der Statistiker's response to this was only to update Minato ku's outdated revert himself, and, even after voiced opposition, re-insert the removed content under a misleading edit summary [75]. The entire 'what happened' is on the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker and Minato ku have worked as a 'team' since around 2007, as made obvious in the Economy of Paris article (the scene of his 'bigger than thou' battles with other big-city articles) and talk page.

While writing this, yet another skyscrapercity.com-er, Clouchicloucha[76], just showed up to 'vote support' Der Statistiker and Minato ku.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I can provide more data if it is needed. Please do check up on my record, and any questions are welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Promenader. Der Statistiker has a very long history of problematic behaviour surrounding the Paris article. I still remember his trolling comments when I promoted the article to GA, disgusting. He has shown time and time again he canvasses support from offwiki as evidenced by the recent Clouch "support", gaming the system. Based on what Jmabel told him before I strongly suggest we topic ban this editor from Paris articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Here the only person I see contacting people off-wiki is ThePromenader, who, in the admission of Jmabel himself, contacted Jmabel last week (see [77]), despite the fact that there is no trace of any message by ThePromenader in Jmabel's talk page history ([78]). So we have an obvious case of off-wiki contact there, from someone who accuses other editors of "gaming" the system. And I suspect User:Clouchicloucha is an account created by ThePromenader himself to discredit me by writing what looks like awkward messages of support in the talk page right in time for ThePromenader to open his complaint against me here. Like how timely and convenient! Der Statistiker (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did contact Jmabel off-wiki (an admin here, by the way, not an off-wiki forum member), for advice and to intervene, which he did, and he said as much [79]. The only difference is that now he doesn't have his talk-page full of complaints.

The User:Clouchicloucha accusation is just lame. Both Der Statistiker and Minato ku know full well who they are. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a user asking me (or anyone else) off-wiki to take a look at what's going on with an article and my openly indicating that I did so. If you think something about this was inappropriate, please say precisely what it was. If you don't, then stop making insinuations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again!! The problem came from a badly written transportation section full of errors that did not bother anybody until I changed it to put more information (accurate information). I think this bothers ThePromenader because it does not follow the plan he wants. In his few edits of the transportation section prior to my edit he kept the numerous errors that were there. Does he really care about the quality and accuracy of the information in the Paris article?
I don't understand why this change of the transportation section has created such noise. No content was deleted; quite the opposite, information was added.
I don't get the war between Der Statistiker and ThePromenader and I'm tired of being used as a pretext for this war (find another scapegoat). I want a good wikipedia article about Paris at the level of New York City article. Nowadays Paris article is more like a tourist guide focused on history (more like the history of anecdotal events rather than a history of the development of the city) and stereotypes. You just need to compare Paris' article with London's article to see this problem. The quality of the information in the Paris article should be the goal of everybody rather than this stupid war of ego. Minato ku (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For both comments above, I'll let the Paris talk page speak for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

But about the 'scapegoat' issue: the article quality concerns you mention here is what the article talk page is for. If you see a problem, open a discussion, and you may find people even helping you. You and Statistiker have overlapping goals (showing Paris as the most modern, etc., city possible), but his example of "impose X (in total disregard for other contributors); use 'tactics' to make it stick" is an extremely bad one to follow; Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on cooperative reasoning, not 'tag-team tactics' (against (an)other contributor(s)), so if you're going to 'team up' with the latter, it's going to turn around to bite you in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles

As per above, there has been clear evidence that Der Statistiker is gaming the system and causing disruption of a large scale with Paris-related articles. ThePromenader has already supplied the diffs above and previous evidence as well as another proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles last year. The evidence is overwhelming and the disruption caused seems to go at no end. He has also been cautioned about meatpuppetry and despite the warnings, he is clearly doing it again. I propose that Der Statistiker be topic banned indefinitely (provisionally) from Paris-related articles, although it might be more suitable if an admin determines the length. JAGUAR  14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Long time coming, should have been topic banned last time. I'd suggest a permanent ban as he has a habit of returning after a year or two and causing trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There has been too much disruption at the Paris article and several editors have been forced away because of the behaviours exhibited there; this needs to end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The foremost challenge when editing Paris articles should be article quality, not Der Statistiker. This has gone on for too many years already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I reviewed and promoted the article for GA and was dismayed at what happened to it thereafter. Der Statistker's repeated interventions seemed to me to go beyond what was reasonable and collegiate as we understand it in Wikipedia. I hope we can eventually rescue the article and restore it to GA standards. Tim riley talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The is no "clear evidence". There is insinuations from always the same user, ThePromenader, who apparently thinks the more something is repeated the more people will believe it. It reminds me a lot of Saddam and weapons of mass destructions in 2003. None of the diffs above prove anything. This wouldn't stand a chance in a regular court of justice.

As for "disruption", here the one who creates the most troubles in this article is ThePromenader, as is obvious with repeated complaints on this noticeboard despite the fact that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise asked all editors from the Paris article to stop doing so, and with ThePromenader's aggressive behavior in the Paris talk page and the history of the Paris article (for example here accusing another editor of "POV creep", or here rewriting Minato ku's edit from just a few hours before, and in the process introducing various errors such as a dot after "daily" instead of a comma, or repeating "257 stops and 587 km (365 mi) of rails" twice in the same sentence; isn't that the very definition of disruption?). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what Der Statisker has done wrong. He is bringing useful information in the article. I find rather funny to see ThePromenader saying Der Statistiker is disrupting the article because since I am a member here I found ThePromenader much more of a problem in this article concerning the quality of the article's content. Also I find strange that SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld suddenly found this complaint here that is not mentioned anywhere in the talk page of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is clear, and this has been going on far too long. A waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: While there's certainly disruption here that may be in need of admin intervention, I'm not convinced a unilateral ban of Der Statistiker is the right way to go. Last year when I intervened as an admin in this conflict, my impression was clearly that of an it-takes-two-to-tango situation: There are two parties with equally strong POV perspectives, Statistiker and Promenader, who are both backed up by their respective tag teams, are both equally allergic to each other's presence, and both probably suffer from "m:Megalomaniacal point of view" to an equal extent, insofar as they both seem quite unable to realize that their own POV is just that, a point of view like others. The article was quiet for a year as long as both of them were away, it exploded again within a matter of days as soon as the two of them were back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is what it may look like on the surface (according to statistiker's complaints to you), but, if you look further, namely at the diffs I provided above concerning the complaint to you (and everything else, for that matter), that's not the case. I don't see where the POV accusation comes from, nor the 'tag-team' one: just because article contributors find themselves having to deal with statistiker's behaviour doesn't make them a 'team' pushing a POV. And even then, it was article contributors opposing one contributor and others summoned off-wiki... I don't see how it is possible to overlook that. When this happened two years ago, I only became aware of it after it was already in full swing, so I'm hardly any 'ringleader' in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is repetition, but concerning 'just me', statistiker had been gone over a year when I announced [80] that I was available for editing (and would be editing soon) just to be sure, and it was another month before I made my first edit to the article [81]. Statistiker showed up one week later [82], and for everything after that, I refer to you to the Paris talk page. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support:Der Statistiker has consistently been rude, sarcastic and aggressive, attacking and insulting any editor who disagrees with him. He makes it very hard to work on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest disruption on Paris has come from Promenader. If anyone is to be topic banned it is he. It certainly does not help when his friends dr blo and schrocat add to the disruption. Their POV pushing has been going on forever at Paris. Caden ^cool 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, then? JAGUAR  20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors who have had long-time involvement in either of the tag-teams mentioned, as well as their habitual wikifriends and wikifoes, need to lay off this discussion; their !votes here are unhelpful and unwelcome. (Caden, that certainly applies to you just as much as anybody, given your long-standing feuds with Blofield and friends.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The evidence of off-wiki recruiting for meatpuppets to aid in an edit war is clear and damning. No opinion whether ThePromenador is also behaving problematically, since it isn't important to this case: two wrongs don't make a right. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support. I think Der Statistiker has good content to bring to this, but in practice he doesn't seem to have worked out a way to work on the articles cooperatively. I'm sure he will be able to make solid contributions elsewhere, in articles with people with whom he gets on better. At the same time, I'd recommend to the others working on the article that they think long and hard about the general issues he's raised, and how the article might better address these concerns (especially that it shorts Paris as a present-day city). - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins

ThePromenader already asked for my topic-ban from the Paris-related article ([83]) but his request was suspended by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who set the following rule: [84]

" from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time."

After nearly a year without editing the Paris article (in a large measure due precisely to previous witch-hunting by ThePromenader, which doesn't really induce people to spend time to work on this or other articles... I note that the French editors who used to work on that article are all gone now), I finally made my first edit in almost a year in this article on November 19, 2015 ([85]). Almost immediately, and despite the fact that I had had no contact or interaction with ThePromenader in almost a year, ThePromenader:

a- accused me of "POV creep" ([86])

b- then opened this new complaint against me with for the most part with the same old recycled paranoid and unsubstantiated stuff as last year

If words have a meaning, a- and b- both breach the rule set by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article. I find it unfair that I have to defend myself against someone who breaches rules and harasses me within 24 hours of my 1st edit to this article in a year. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If your first edits to an article since a year are confrontational [87][88][89][90][91], there's already a problem, and some sort of (not 'harassment', push back ) reaction is only to be expected, don't you think? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker has been bringing out this one-time 'ruling' every time his behaviour is questioned since... a year now, and seems to think that it's an excuse to act in all impunity (because people aren't 'allowed' to complain about his behaviour). A look at the Paris talk page will show this clearly enough, but I can provide diffs if needed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, distorted presentation of facts... I haven't made a single edit in the Paris (or Paris-related) article between November 30, 2014 ([92]) and November 19, 2015 ([93]), i.e. almost an entire year. Yet you somehow imply that during this one year when I have not been editing the article my "behavior" has been "questioned" and I have brought out this rule "every time"... in a year when I haven't even edited this article. Like... right. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thus the '...' in my reply. Before, after, here, like a day never passed inbetween. Shall I provide examples? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's high time for an interaction ban. It's pretty clear that these two editors will argue forever. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not like before. I actually regret leaving my last comment, there was no need to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Summit, I have no opinion about whether an interaction ban is a good idea or not, as that decision belongs entirely to the admins, but I think if an interaction ban is decided, it should also include User:SiefkinDR as per for example the case that I've detailed here on Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this. An interaction ban limited only to ThePromenader and myself would fail to achieve the goal of pacifying this article I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has no place here - one cannot use admin attention to an inquiry into one's own behaviour to try to 'enforce' a personal vendetta against another contributor - but it is a perfect demonstration of the aforementioned WP:GAMEing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins: ThePromenader is now moving around comments from other editors in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page: [94]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also of note for the admins: in the Paris talk page, SiefkinDR claims that he rewrote the section about the Greater Paris Metropolis that I had written and created only 3 days before because "it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole." ([95]) The diff of my edit from 3 days before shows that this section in fact DID contain the area and population of the Metropolis ([96]), contrary to what SiefkinDR is claiming. This is an example of what I'm confronted with in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New attacks against editors

I hope the administrators are aware of the posts that were made at the end of November on two French urban planning sites, urging members to come into Wikipedia to support Der Statistiker and specifically to attack me, Promenader and Blofeld. The attacks on me, by name, and the other editors are quite personal and insulting. This kind of behavior is unfortunately typical. Der Statistker has to stop using articles on Paris to promote has personal agenda. See the posts below.

English link: [97] - Original French: [98]

I hope administrators will act to stop this kind of behavior. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this isn't getting any attention at all - it's been six days since this was opened. I have to keep making silly comments just to keep it from being archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Jeppiz:: since you have been concerned in/submitted past same-subject ANI-cases [99][100], your input would be of value here, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That link constitutes pretty shameless stealth canvassing, including naming individual editors to oppose, and asking for the notice to be removed before anyone here sees it. I don't have a stake in nor overview of the Paris issue, but this is not acceptable behaviour.-- Elmidae 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we know the person on those external fora is Statistiker? So far the only thing that seems clear is that it's somebody who's friends with Minato Ku. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you did look it over, please go through it again. There are so many overlaps that it's just not not possible, and that's even without considering the WP:DUCK aspects of it all. And the silence reigning speaks volumes, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin give this some attention, please

The concerned contributor has disappeared [101] since the update was posted (the 4th of December, 2015), but to close the door to future abuse, this case still needs proper attention. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

178.217.194.100

178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has, over the last few weeks, been trying to add a huge table about birth rates by the country of birth of the mother and father in England and Wales. When reverted at Demography of England, the IP posted it at Demography of the United Kingdom, then when reverted there at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, and now Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, despite warnings not to continue doing so. Seeing their latest edit, I thought that I would see what they have been adding to articles on other countries. I found this addition to Demographics of France, including the text: "If French people (whites) didn't wake up they will be minority in their own country, and they arleady lost Paris". Is it time to block? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Following my revert, the IP has restored the unsourced commentary less the racist postscript. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have removed and deleted it as a copyvio of http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/04/race-in-france-a-sketch-based-on-first-and-second-generation-immigrants/. They began editing in June with gnoming table edits on demography, they appear to be an experienced editor. Their recent commentary noted above reveals a disturbing motive for their editing, it may be time to block if they won't properly engage in discussion. Fences&Windows 08:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of the user's edits can cause improvements, as the information added to demographics of the UK was then turned into prose by myself. The problem is that they have never engaged in discussion or edit summaries and most of the edits miss the mark on the style of Wikipedia (i.e. overloaded tables). The scale of articles with such tables added is staggering and I'm amazed this has gone on for so long without being picked up. Maybe a block will force the user into discussion... Jolly Ω Janner 09:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstracting out the content issue, there's an interesting question regarding tables and data, especially tables which collate readily accessible (and verifiable) information, possibly from multiple sources, but which don't fit well, stylistically. Is there a place to put big data tables? Wikidata seems to be the wrong place, but articles do suffer from large tables. Argyriou (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth saying that excessive lists of statistics are discouraged by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A reply from 178.217.194.100: "My mistake, I'm sorry for that. It won't happen again. I'm still learning what is acceptable. I like French people and I want to help not hurt anyone. Notice that I help in editing many pages about demography in many countries". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to get 178.217.194.100 to understand how to use decimal points, but I'm not getting a response and they continue to use commas for this purpose. Any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You could try reverting a few of the edits, since that's normally when the user is prompted to engage in discussion. It's rare that any of the edits are worthy of inclusion anyway. Another alternative would be to follow the user's every edit and cleanup after them, but this is very time consuming and perhaps a waste of time since these tables are barely worthy of inclusion (I certainly don't want to volunteer!). Doesn't look like the topic is attracting much help from admins, sadly. Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite a further reminder yesterday, this has continued this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that edit as suggested, Jolly Janner, but 178.217.194.100 just reinstated it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• 178.217.192.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be previous IP for this user. The edits with this IP address go back to December 2014 with the exact same edits. This user has shown the ability to read and write in English and engage in discussion with us. I don't think the user will ever listen to our construction criticisms. Jolly Ω Janner 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

• BalCoder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since Aug.16 a new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been disrupting the proportional representation (PR) article for politically partisan reasons. He displays all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS except cite-tagging. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve WP but to help the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). I am the only person protecting the PR article, I don't see a way out except to get the user blocked, so I come back to WP:ANI.

Story so far: I have tried talk page discussion, WP:BRD, not reverting to encourage cooperation, a WP:ANI incident to block him which attracted no admin response, a request for help at WP:WikiProject Politics which also brought no response (it appears to be moribund). The article has twice been protected to encourage cooperation. After the ANI failure my only recourse was reverting but we were both blocked once for edit warring. Others encouraged me to try WP:DRN, which I did twice, here and here, both attempts failing because Ontario, although agreeing to both mediations, failed to cooperate.

Political bias: Apart from PR, almost all Ontario's edits have concerned Canadian politics, obviously in connection with the Oct.19th Canadian federal election, and obviously in support of the Conservative Party of Canada (e.g.here, here, here). In the PR article he puffs FPTP and diminishes the various PR systems, particularly MMP. MMP is the official policy of the New Democratic Party, and reform of the electoral system to a more proportional one is a policy of the new Liberal government. The CPC wants to retain FPTP. Ontario has also misleadingly changed a number of other electoral system articles with crude copy/paste from the PR article, as well as a template:

• Mixed-member proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Semi-proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Closed list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Open list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The basic dispute: Ontario insists that mixed member proportional representation (MMP) is not PR but "mixed", and has mutilated the article's structure in consequence. MMP is both mixed and proportional, as its name implies. That it is "usually considered PR", as the lead says, is uncontentious, has unimpeachable sources, and has not been challenged since being introduced on Dec.11, 2014 (diff) (in those eleven months, though the article receives ca.1000 hits/day, the only changes to the MMP section have been some commas and the words "Scotland and Wales".) Although I have referred him seven times to these sources, and they were the subject of both DRN incidents, he has yet to justify his removal of the statement. He allows only that MMP is semi-proportional for which he produces thirteen (!) sources, none of which supports his contention. His only arguments are some specific MMP elections which did not produce proportional results, one of which, Hungary, is already mentioned in the article as an example of gerrymandering.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

Tendentious

Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.

His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.

He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".

Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.

Verifiability

He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!

Does not engage in consensus building

Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.

Ignores community input

There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.

Exhaust the patience of productive editors

This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.

Failure to 'get the point'

One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

Ontario should be permanently blocked from all electoral system articles. --BalCoder (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is a content dispute

I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.

To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.

BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.

Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Dude. 166.176.59.110 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?

I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.

Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.

From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.

I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

There are currently two disputes: a conduct dispute and a content dispute. In terms of conduct, User:BalCoder has repeatedly used uncivil language such as calling me an unscrupulous liar on 27 Sep 2015. Comparatively, I have, in good faith, used 'adaptive edits' in order to build consensus whereas BalCoder has merely mass reverted content based on the author alone. Furthermore, I have contacted other editors who have previously contributed to the article in order to build consensus and have input their suggestions/points of view several times through adaptive edits. Moreover, BalCoder has accused me of being politically motivated, and holding an anti-MMP stance. This accusation is quite shocking as I am personally in favour of MMP, as it is a compromise between the other two voting systems families. In fact, I voted for MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. I do feel, however, WP editors have a responsibility to compare the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems fairly. For this reason, I have attempted to ensure fair and neutral language is used throughout the article, while BalCoder has used severe language ripe with biased tones in his/her edits.

In terms of content, User:BalCoder has renamed the subtitle 'Mixed or Hybrid' from the WP article on 11 Dec 14 to the seldom used term 'Two-tier systems'. I reverted this change. This user has deliberately misrepresented the truth by acting like his/her subtitle is the original version in order to establish a false incumbency. The premise of his/her arguments is that he/she is "protecting what was there before" is blatantly false. In truth, it is the other way around. Additionally, BalCoder removed the entire, and extremely well sourced section, 'PR systems in the broader family of voting systems'. This user has mislead others to believe I created this section- I did not! This section of the article was present prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information into an easy-to-understand table.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

This table primarily comes from the Electoral Reform Society of the UK. However, the classification of electoral systems into these three groups: PR systems, Mixed member systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems is universally used around the world by academic scholars, journalists, and electoral reform advocacy groups alike from a wide variety of political persuasions. For this reason, I provided examples from around the world to demonstrate that this classification is global. So, in addition to the aforementioned British example from an electoral reform advocacy group, I provided an example from a major Canadian magazine(Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine), and from an Italian (Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca) University professor. This quite blatantly disproved BalCoder's wild accusation that I am somehow exclusively using Canadian sources.

In terms of the accusation that I have not worked to reach consensus or that I have not provided sources which list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, consider the following:

As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

"Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

Therefore, I believe User:BalCoder should be banned from the WP article based on both uncivil conduct, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts. The content of the proportional representation article can be resolved by other editors who have demonstrated good faith such as User:Reallavergne and Øln. Thank you for your time.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

---

So, the editors here plus FreeKnowledgeCreator have been edit-warring again over the page, see the article revision history. May I propose several solutions? I am aware that I am at least partially involved, if not fully by this point.

1. Topic-ban Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (per oblique request by filing party, BalCoder')
2. Topic-ban BalCoder (per request by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd)
3. Topic-ban both editors, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder (per WP:BOOMERANG)
4. Indef. fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users: Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk) (new request; this will require the users to either work co-operatively or not have the article corrected by using edit requests to Admins.)

Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For starters, calling someone a "new user" in the first sentence is attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad", which makes me sour (and absolutely contrary to what the community and foundation has been doing). Judging on the discussion itself, all I see is a wall of text, lots of policies and their abbreviations thrown around, and lots of diffs being tucked inside the wall of text that blends in with article links and policies pages. Talk page was working fine until BalCoder decides to send it to ANI. I suggest to send this back to the talk page where it is most suitable to this type of discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited: It is remarkable how people jump to unwarrented conclusions. To say I am attempting to paint an overall picture that "all new users are bad" is purest fantasy. I called Ontario a "new user" because right from the off her edits were politically partisan. Her very first edit (which I linked to above under "Political bias") is to "Tom Mulcair", a Canadian political leader, and consists of the one word "Abortion". (As a Canadian environmentalist you are particularly well placed to judge how political the second edit linked to there is; vandalism? I don't think so). I am painting the accurate picture that Ontario is here for politically partisan reasons. Nothing more, nothing less. And that you can say "Talk page was working fine..." beggars belief. No-one who has contributed to the TP discussion would subscribe to that. They are saying take it topic by topic, which is what I have been saying since I proposed BRD on Aug.24, but Ontario has yet to start that discussion. And it's my fault?

I am offended by the ad hominem attacks. To be clear, I included the subtitle abortion on the Tom Mulcair's WP page as the section of text (which I neither wrote, nor edited) was on the topic of abortion. The previous subtitle was Women's rights. In order to preserve Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, this subtitle had to be changed. Wikipedia has a clear policy on article titles, and subtitles. This minor edit was not politically motivated.

In terms of the talk page I have consistently been willing to discuss issues one at a time. I have gone as far as to seek other editors to act as mediators, and in particular those who have made previous contributions to the article. Currently, User:Bgwhite, an admin, is acting as a mediator.

MPP is a 'Mixed Electoral System'. According to 'Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences' by Federico Ferrara, "An electoral system is "mixed" if more than one formula is employed to distribute legislative seats." User:Reallavergne has accurately pointed out that Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM), also known as parallel voting does not issue PR seats in a compensatory manor, and is therefore always semi-proportional. However, MMP can also be semi-proportional if insufficient/no compensatory seats are awarded to compensate for the Overhang seats, if the FPTP seats greatly outnumber the List-PR seats, complicated coalition rules distort the seat count, and/or if minimum thresholds deny smaller parties List-PR seats. Although the extremely rare exception of MMP in New Zealand yielded proportional results, MMP in Romania, Hungary, and Italy has been semi-proportional. In the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (a staggering 70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (only 30% of the Legislature). This is another example of semi-proportional MMP. Regardless of the results of specific elections, MMP is considered a 'Mixed System' as it combines both PR and FPTP methods to distribute legislative seats.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is like an earlier comment above from User:Willondon, that some statements of mine raise "red flags", although they are guileless statements of objective fact. If I say I am "the only person protecting the PR article" it is because if I didn't revert Ontario's work the proportional representation article would rejoin the mass of decayed political articles (like the Mixed-member proportional representation article which Ontario changed with a crudely erroneous copy/paste on Sep 7 and which has yet to be corrected/reverted). --BalCoder (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Fully-protect the article, Proportional Representation at a diff prior to the edit-warring between users

Suggested diff by Drcrazy102 (talk)

User Springee Canvassing

User Springee has taken to canvassing to find support for his point of view on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. He explicitly asked SlimVirgin to contribute to the discussion after discovering s/he held the same position as him in an earlier talk page discussion from 5 years ago. [102] I warned[103] him about canvassing which he dismissed as an attempt to "intimidate"[104] and then continued to recruit SlimVirgin to weigh in on the discussion.[105] His statement wasn't neutrally stated and he didn't contact anyone with an opposing point of view to join the discussion. This is a violation of WP:VOTESTACK and Campaigning as described by WP:CANVASS.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Except for that there isn't a vote, and that this could just as easily be seen as someone asking an expert opinion. Your warning consisted of nothing more than dropping a template on their talk page. No doubt this results from all the animosity on the talk page, where Gamaliel has already asked for the thermostat to be turned down a little bit. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee's Reply This is simply a case of an editor with a wp:battleground mentality trying to game the system rather than assuming good faith in addressing a content dispute. It is similar in nature to an ANI the editor filed against me in September also related to the Southern Strategy article [106]. Admin Ricky81682 was the only admin to reply to (excluding some unrelated IP harassment) noting that "There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is."[107].

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to edit a section of the same article. Scoobydunk has reverted my edits a number of times[108][109][110][111][112] claiming, in part, that WP:RS says that non-peer reviewed sources are less reliable than peer reviewed sources and thus can not be used to challenge a peer reviewed source.[[113]] Likely due to the walls of text this discussion yielded no support for his views. To get outside help in solving the WP:RS question regarding scholarly vs non-scholarly contradicting sources I started a RSN discussion.Reliable Sources Noticeboard Given the contentious exchanges in the topic only editor replied prior to today (only after I started replying to this ANI did I see today's replies to the RSN discussion). Given the lack of replies I went looking for older archive discussions and found the thread Scoobydunk is referring to. It was clear from reading that discussion that the consensus was that peer reviewed sources should not automatically trump non-peer reviewed sources. I asked an editor from that thread to weigh in on the topic. I did not ask the editor to decide if the sources I was using were reliable nor did I ask the editor to decide if the edits I was making to the article were correct. It is quite possible the editor would totally disagree. However, as someone who was involved in the discussion and as one of the editors who helped craft the WP:RS guideline it seemed reasonable to ask for the opinion. I do not feel I asked in a non-neutral way since I was asking for the opinion on a policy, not article edits. Furthermore, asking ONE involved editor hardly seems like canvasing. Springee (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I was starting to be on your side until I saw you responding to DreamGuy with a half a mile of text, and now you're doing the same thing here. Good god you are wordy. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And we see that once again history repeats itself. A "slim", "Virgin" is at the centre of drama. Apparently Springee has abducted the aforementioned virgin to render him favours, which does not suit dunk's view as he wants the Slim Virgin all for himself. One a more Boring and wiki policified note, this does not appear to be a Canvass as the forum being used is not one which relies on voting. This is a basic request for views on source credibility and asking an expert to voice her(yes I presume all virgins that are slim should be "her") views. So, in a nutshell, Mush Drama about nothing. Regards , a slightly high FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry about the long reply. I too often feel the need to include all the details. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Canvassing is not limited to "voting" and clearly applies to debates and noticeboard discussions. Also, if Springee wants to make his own ANI topic to address his concerns, he's more than welcome to. However, this topic is specifically to address WP:VOTESTACK concerns. The policy explicitly says "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." Not to mention the part about Campaigning. Springee didn't just ask for clarification, he repeatedly asked for involvement on the RSN which is directly defined as canvassing. He explicitly explains how he found this discussion, identified a user that had the same opinion as him, and requested that user weigh in on the discussion, while no asking editors with opposing views to weigh in. That's verbatim WP:VOTESTACK which also says nothing about "voting". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is notifying one expert vote stacking? Springee (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." as per WP:VOTESTACK. It's literally right there in the policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What is an undue number? Springee (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More than zero. BMK (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's an uneven number. But let's not forget about this part too "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." here we don't have to worry about defining "undue" because this explicitly explains what you did in encouraging SlimVirgin to participate in the discussion. You knew their position on the matter, only selected that single editors, and encouraged them to join the RSN. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

She (I assume she) was an editor who helped write the RS policy and thus was well placed to tell us what the indented meaning was. Contrary to how you portrayed things, there was a general consensus in the archived discussion that RS does not automatically place scholarly sources over other reliable sources. The debate was how that should be communicated, not that it was the intent. Springee (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Notice: I got pinged here so whatever. I think that was canvassing but Slimvirgin commented mentioning that and did not actually seem to offer an opinion. I think the Scoobydunk's templating is fine, nothing more is needed as long as Springee stops doing anything more in that vein. Second, there are four outside other opinions at RSN now so I don't think there's nothing more needed as the discussion is properly focused on weight which is the actual issue. Third, god the length and bickering is nuts here. I think it's almost time to consider dual topic bans or something just for the sake of the rest of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Question I have been accused of asking only a single admin in an archive thread. Scoobydunk claims there was not consensus on the particular question I was asking. So whom else in that archived thread should I have asked to avoid the perception of imbalance? Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Scoobydunk previously accused me of canvasing when I asked another editor to lend a voice to the Southern Strategy article. When looking for an 3rd party POV I was deliberate in picking an editor whom I respected but almost always disagreed with.[114] As can be seen in the article talk section and the notice board discussions Fyddlestix has largely not agreed with me and my proposed edits including the ones related to this discussion. For the trouble of going out of my way to pick an editor whom I assumed would not be inclined to agree with me I was accused of canvasing.[115] Springee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that Springee is frustrated. Let's channel that frustration in other ways. The impulse to seek other opinions and break an impasse between two editors is a good one, so instead of complaining about inappropriate canvassing, let's try to channel that into an RFC or a post at Wikipedia:Third opinion or some other means of appropriate dispute resolution. Here, this discussion is just becoming an extention of the initial dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I only listed canvassing concerns for the current RSN, however they've been going on for about a month in various degrees of our discussions. If Springee is going to reference his outreach to Fyddlestix, then the rest of his outreaches should be noted. So, Springee considers Fyddlestix a typically opposing view when it comes to matters of dispute, however Fyddlestix had no previous involvement on the Southern Strategy article before Springee contacted him. Springee left Fyddlestix, the opposing view, a neutrally worded message. At the same time, Springee contacted Rjensen [116] who had been recently engaged on the Southern Strategy, and left him a clearly biased message laying out his argument in full and seeking assistance. I gave Springee a warning for this biased approach in recruiting editors, as Springee notes above. Since then, Springee has also contacted Scott Illni [117][118] who's previously edited the article similarly to Springee, like including information claiming Reagan didn't use the Southern Strategy[119]. Springee has also contacted Guy Macon[120] to seek assistance, and Guy Macon has taken similar stances with Springee regarding multiple political issues in the past. Then, of course, there's SlimVirgin. So Springee attempted to involve 1 editor with an opposing view, while contacting 4 editors with supporting views over the course of the last month. I only focused on SlimVirgin and the current RSN because I don't like raising issue when the content can be subjective, and with SlimVirgin it is an objectively verbatim violation of WP:VOTESTACK. However, if Springee considers his outreach to Fyddlesix to be an example of recruiting an opposing view, then his similar outreaches to 3 supporting views should be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Not these two again! It's User:Scoobydunk and User:Springee continuing to forum shop and quarrel about Southern Strategy. This has been going on for a month at multiple noticeboards. They have both been notified of discretionary sanctions for American politics. Can some uninvolved administrator please topic-ban them from discussion of and reports about Southern strategy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You previously accused me of forum shopping in a NPOVN discussion that was started by Scoobydunk. I do not understand how that would have been forum shopping. Asking a specific RSN question is also not forum shopping (and no one claimed it was). This ANI was started by Scoobydunk so again, please don't accuse me of forum shopping related to this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon this is one thing I agree with Springee, and your accusations of forum shopping do not exhibit good faith. Every issue posted at the relevant noticeboard has been separate and justified. This hasn't been over a single issue, but regarding multiple aspects of individual pieces of information, sources, and behavior that a single noticeboard does not encompass. The issues have ranged from Majority opinion over the Top-Down approach, to NPOV concerns, to reliable source issues, and now behavioral. There is no one noticeboard that can address all of these and they all regarding different edits. I also think it's inappropriate to suggest a dual topic ban when editors follow the dispute resolution guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure based on self enforced break I'm announcing here that I am going to stay off the Southern Strategy article for at least the rest of the year. As I've said before, between multiple undos of my edits by Scoobydunk and the generally heated (as noted by others) discussion pages I think it has become too challenging to work productively on the topic. I hope this will simply put this mess behind us and hopefully other editors can work with some of the sources I've brought to the table. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a self imposed break is a solution. The last time Springee suggested a self-imposed 30-day Iban for wikihounding another editor[121], he immediately went back to following that editor to different articles and reverting his work after the 30 days expired[122][123][124]. Those are just 3 of the article reverts of HughD, but there are over a dozen reverts that all occurred on the same day his iban expired on October 15.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, if your object is to get both of us topic banned I suspect this is a good way to do it. I think we have two admins who would be quite happy to see that happen. If that is your wish so be it but I would rather not be topic banned. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So Springee followed the self-imposed break then. I don't see a problem. If Springee self imposes a break until the end of the year and doesn't edit the article until the end of the year, is that enough for you Scoobydunk? Else what do you want, four weeks? A full ban? You're free to bring this up again if this starts on January 1st but I'm assuming that people will move on to disputing the next item then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Ricky81682 I'm not sure what all an I-ban entails but he maintained contact with HughD either directly or indirectly throughout[125][126][127]. He just didn't directly revert his edits. What is the difference between a self-imposed break and one forced by an admin? I think if I understand this, it will help me answer your questions about what I'm looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A self-imposed ban means nothing but an admin can shut this discussion down as moot and we can move on. An admin one is admin imposed and either requires an admin deciding to do it or enough support here to do it. Again, what would you propose be done? As I stated above, mutual topic bans may be required if it's helpful to the encyclopedia. If you two simply cannot co-exist together, and I can't figure out who's more at fault, I'd prefer not having this page nor AE filled up with bickering by telling you both to find another one of the 4.9 million pages here that aren't this one. If Springee stays away for the next few weeks, then you have free reign there but if you're back here on January 1st complaining that Springee is back, then we've resolved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My complaints are strictly limited to policy violations and have never been because "someone is back". I don't see how a mutual ban is any sort of solution when Springee is the only one who's canvassed. I'll settle for self imposed break, but I hope next time Springee resorts to wikihounding, canvassing, tendentious editing or whatever, an admin actually does something about it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying if there's a limited self-imposed ban, I would be surprised if upon editing there again, the same issues didn't pop up again and thus all we've done is had three weeks of quiet and delayed the inevitable. I'm not offering any opinion as to your complaints, as noted above, you were correct in that it seems somewhat inappropriate so the templating is correct but I don't see it as problematic enough to warrant a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk's comments and demand for punishment come across as WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. Perhaps we should both voluntarily leave the article for the rest of the month. My requests for outside help, improper though they now appear to be, were the result of Scoobydunks efforts to absolutely block all my editing efforts in the 1970-1990 subsection (we were the only editors at the time) and a desire to avoid an edit war. An ANI less than a month back found we were both less than civil [128]. 1RR for me, Scoobydunk got a warning due to a technicality [129]. Taking advantage of my 1RR limitation, all 5 of my edits from Nov 14th to Nov 28th were systematically reverted, [130][131][132][133][134]. The first was new material to the article. The subsequent 5 were good faith effort to address the limited feedback Scoobydunk offered for the undos. These reversals of good faith edits go against WP:DONTREVERT and look like WP:OWN. I'm taking the time off from the article because I'm tired of the above and tired of the implications of bad faith after spending several hours in a research library finding hard copy sources. If Scoobydunk wants sanctions then I suggest we review the above reverts in context of the recent uncivil editing ANI. But, perhaps the better option is we both take some time off from the article (I am) or we just drop it. Springee (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one responsible for your behavior Springee. Springee also misrepresents the events. Following his 1RR sanction, Springee immediately took to reverting information in the article again. [135] Yes, he did add some new material, but he also removed and edited pre-existing material which partially lead to his 1RR sanction in the first place. Slakr was the admin overseeing our previous edit war ANI and he has been kept informed of just about all of the editing since he gave Springee a 1RR sanction. This includes all of the diffs Springee just listed above. Slakr ultimately decided to temporarily lock the article and asked us to use dispute resolution.[136] We have been following Slakr's advice since then, but since the DRN's weren't going in favor of Springee, he decided to start canvassing and that's why we're here today. Since Slakr suggested we use dispute resolution, there hasn't been any edit warring and we've been following his suggestions, however it's hard to achieve a valid consensus when one editors resorts to canvassing to influence the outcome.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of immediately 'started reverting again' makes the presumption that the article was 'correct' before the reverts. The ANI finds (which found against both of us) did not make any ruling on the quality of the material, only the uncivil behavior of the editors. The article lock also didn't claim to support the current state of the article. Slakr told you he saw nothing wrong with the continued edits.[137] Your comment about DRN's is misleading. 3 of your 5 reverts occurred before you filed a COATRACK NPOVN claim. After it was clear that claim got no support I tried to edit 2 more times. You immediately reverted both edits. My RSN filing on the 29th, was made after your 5th reversion of my material. Perhaps your intent is to get us both blocked in order to maintain status quo in the article. Either way, I think Ricky has made it clear that if you think sanctions are appropriate, propose them. Else, let it drop. Springee (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I already said I was fine with your self proposed break, then you started to bring up information that has already been addressed by Slakr. So it's clear that you're the one that needs to "drop it". Also, for every revert of mine that you're complaining about, it followed a revert of your own. That's to say, you resorted to reverting first instead of waiting for a consensus of a dispute resolution. Also, I didn't mislead about anything and I actually started a DRN before Slakr locked the article and suggested using dispute resolution, which is all I spoke to. Yes, I've been using dispute resolution to solve these issues, but you've resorted to reverting the article to suit your narrative and then resorted to canvassing to affect the outcome of the dispute resolution. Again, I'm fine with the self imposed break.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If Springee is canvassing, he is really, really bad at it, based upon the fact that he also asked me for advice (User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing). Springee is familiar with how I do things, and would have known that asking me is pretty much asking to have me impartially examine his own edit history along with the edit history of whoever he is having the dispute with. I declined in this case because I don't think I can be unbiased on this particular topic (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Strategy), but he had no way of knowing that ahead of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest (but not mandate) that no canvassing of anyone in the future be done. It's clear some people will take it as a slight no matter who is contacted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actual canvassing is bad. Asking for help is not. Because I have been involved in WP:DRN for a long time, many people who have been is DRN cases that I mediated ask me for help or advice regarding content disputes. Nothing wrong with that unless they have reason to believe that I will favor their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't really matter whether there has been canvassing. It doesn't really matter whether there has been improper forum shopping. It isn't important to come up with a proper wikilawyered identification of what is wrong. It is clear that these two editors do not like each other and are disrupting multiple Wikipedia forums with their dispute, and it is clear that something needs to be done. Rather than an interaction ban, which wouldn't work well and might result in more arguments, I suggest that an uninvolved administrator topic-ban both editors from Southern strategy, broadly defined. They have both already been alerted to American politics discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the very same sanctions Robert McClenon just referenced: "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions." This is precisely what Springee and I have done. We've followed the principles and have sought dispute resolution instead of edit warring. So to recommend a topic ban when both editors are following the very same principles they've been informed of seems unmerited and counterproductive.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost two dozen articles, apparently robocreated

User Carolineneil (talk · contribs) created nearly two dozen articles in the span of as many minutes this past weekend. One of them, Different Instruments for Different Equations, has recently been nominated for deletion. I agreed with that assessment, it was a case of textbook writing and the creation of a chapter name, and treating that self-chosen name as if it were a distinct "topic". I then checked regarding the article's creation, and found nearly two articles, all pretty much in the same style were mass created by the same editor. At most one of them, Roy model, seems to be an actual topic, and thus salvageable. (As written though, perhaps WP:NUKE would be appropriate.) There are also two more created after the initial spree, and again, perhaps one of them, Maximum score estimator is an actual topic, but again, nuking might be best.

WP:DP does not seem to have a mass deletion option. It seems pointless to have the same discussion once per article. Recommendations?

Also, someone with biochemical expertise might want to peruse the several successful AFC's on the Talk page. The subjects do not look like "topics" to me, but they are far enough from my expertise that I refrain from pushing it. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion delete the pages in whole, not the specific discussion topic. Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a biochemist here either. Most of these seem to me to be indistinguishable from sections of a multi-chapter review paper - highly specific, and very textbook-style. The editor should try to a) fit that material into existing articles (there's an easy match for the role of 'parent article' for each of those), and b) turn the text into an encyclopedia article, not a didactic monograph.-- Elmidae 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one of his successful AFCs, Glucose oxidation reaction was speedily deleted yesterday as content duplication, User:DGG/CSD log#December 2015, while another Biosynthetic mechanism was turned into a redirect. As an outsider to biochemistry, I'll venture that it would seem "Glucose oxidation reaction" ought to be a redirect to Glycolysis, the existing content duplication, which I'll mention the editor in question has now added material to. And again, speaking as an outsider, I have the impression that "biosynthetic mechanism" is not a topic as such, and so that entry should have been speedy deleted. Choor monster (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Glucose oxidation should have been redirected as you say, & I will do it. I redirected biosynthetic mechanism to this nearest phrase; I would interpret the potential meanings as either reaction mechanisms of biosynthetic reactions, or biochemical pathways of metabolism; the draft article seemed rather confused between them. I don't think the redirect useless just in case someone types it in. It is in cases like this with a confused article an open question whether to delete and then redirect, or just redirect. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking Google, I find that "biosynthetic mechanism" is in fact a term of art in biochemistry. So you are correct, and I was flat out wrong. Whether or not it is a "topic" as such, it is a genuine search term. Choor monster (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As Elmidae guessed, many of the titles match sections in this textbook (ToC linked there); perhaps others match sections of other books. The content doesn't seem to be identical to the book, though. Kanguole 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just happened to come across this. I'm an academic (not a biochemist) and have read that textbook repeatedly. The articles he's writing seem to be rewrites of condensed notes drawing from multiple reference texts, with some attention paid to organizing them into reasonable topics, not a mere copying of that textbook. I should also note that this textbook in question is more similar to an advanced reference text in econometrics rather than a typical textbook, meaning that its treatment of the topics are fairly encyclopedic, and the methods covered have generally gone through some notability criteria.

Having gone through the dozen of article he's created, while several articles have textbook-style titles, my opinion is that they could be close to encyclopedic quality if renamed and reorganized, and certainly not all of them should be deleted. These are legitimate and notable statistical methods that have been widely used and adopted in multiple disciplines. There is currently a huge gap in Wikipedia on some of these topics, since so few of our users are statisticians. I would recommend not discouraging the effort from this user.

I also went through his edit history. Those articles were not robo-created; he actually worked on them in a sandbox. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason we have WP:NUKE. I identified one of them above, Roy model, as possibly being a genuine topic, but what we have is not in any sense an encyclopedic article regarding Roy model, and I feel the same about the others I looked at. But keep in mind there are more than one meanings to "encyclopedic", "notable" and so on. Compare with something elementary, like "reduction to lowest terms", which is covered extensively in textbooks, but we do not have a separate article on it, and probably never will. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed at Knanaya

For some time, Knanaya has been repeatedly affected by at least two editors trying to enforce their views, both using myriad sockpuppets and IPs. Periodically, an "anti-Knanaya" editor has repeatedly added disparaging material about the group, misusing sources to do so (see discussions here, here, and here). Alternately, a "pro-Knanaya" editor (or connected group of editors) edit-wars over the article to excise material they disapprove, even (or especially) well cited material by academics who studied the community (see discussions here, here, and here). They've edited under the names Stansley, Psthomas, and various IPs:[138][139][140]. In August, the article had to be semi-protected through November,[141] and now that it has expired the edit warring has resumed.
I'm also submitting a WP:RFPP, but it's a shame to have to semi-protect the page for so long considering that the disruption seems to come primarily from two people or groups. Perhaps someone could look into the feasibility of a range-block for this problem?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[142],this revision has kept the excised material intact with previous references. This gives more clarity to the subject. Further more if the collected excised material is checked Admin's can see various Origin stories apart from Neill. The only official version that should be taken is the material mentioned in Knanaya community website(http://kottayamad.org/knanaya-history/). That credibility is more than enough for publication (This is the approved version by bishops, priests, synods and community members). If looked more into the excised material Swiderski himself reports as per Cuchullain version that he is unsure about the Southist-Northist divisional history. All these points to the self-conflicting and invalidation of Swiderski's material. Disregarding this facts and further backing up this fictional elements seems to be more detrimental. These material is published in the 1980's and under a foreign private university, so the standards of this are also questionable. But probably out of respect that Cuchullain is a Master Editor, there are requests to keep the Southist-Northist theory, but under a separate title or a new page. None of these sensible suggestions seems to be tasteful for Cuchullain. I hope the use of these semi-protection requests aren't a means to an end; the edit history shows as such. Let the excised material remain excised or to the other person's request under a different page or title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't address the sockpuppetry and edit warring matter at all. For others, please see this, where 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person.[143]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the edited version is a mere grammatical correction which gives more clarity and the same are on the same page of request and if the both parties seems to be o.k about it, where does your sock-puppetry claim stands. Is it a deflection from the mentioned concerns. If not so you have failed to ascertain how a person from Delhi and Maharashtra can be the same - Then that will be the million dollar answer. Other Admins may look at this: http://www.distancesfrom.com/ (From Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India to Pawti, Maharashtra 431703, India) - 1274 Km; I only just saw the talk page rampant now. But standing within all respects to Cuchullain, I have to say from edit history checks, this is not his/hers first claim on the article. There might be people who say that keep the excess material in it and all. I would say just remove it. This is too much and the issue is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People using proxy servers to disguise themselves happens pretty regularly on Wikipedia, and people from different areas can easily coordinate together as meat puppets. The issue here is that we have multiple IPs pushing the same edits on the same subejects at the same times, and revert warring over it. That's not going to fly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I don't think wikipedia allows edit through proxy servers. I use CyberGhost 5 to overcome certain area-restrictions. You may use it and try an experimental edit - Wikipedia wont allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for 6 months due to the sockpuppetry problem. Short of someone implementing range blocks it's probably the only solution that will work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Large sock cluster

The problem is evident looking at the edit history of Silver nanoparticle. There are multiple accounts named "Nano(something)" (e.g. Nanomsg) making large-scale edits to a number of articles, also including Colloidal gold, Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy) and Photothermal therapy. Some of the edits are okay; other contain dubious health information. Either way having a bunch of what look like computer-generated accounts acting in consort is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanoadm. Twenty accounts so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a college class project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, class project at University of Pittsburgh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest forwarding this on to the WMF. Jusdafax 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just ask Eryk (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed) and see if they know anything about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but I remember back in March there was at least one - and maybe two - unregistered classes editing gold nanoparticle articles. I remember we contacted one prof (not at Pitt), but I do feel like there were other edits that looked like classes whose origins we couldn't track down. Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Rhododendrites was the one who solved the mystery then. He may remember more. I'll keep digging, see if I made any other notes. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): I remember it well, but that was at a school on the west coast, not UPitt (being vague because it seems like referencing a very specific class at a specific university without their prior knowledge is fuzzy WP:OUTING territory). I spoke to the professor on the phone in March and we exchanged several emails. He was very interested to work with us (Wiki Ed) next time around, but as I'm not managing the classroom program now I'd have to check with Helaine (Wiki Ed) regarding whether or not she's been in touch with him this term. I've forwarded the March email thread and a summary to her so she can follow up. That doesn't help in the immediate, of course... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I'm skeptical it's the same class. The website for the previous class has not been updated and there are indeed multiple IPs working on these articles which geolocate to UPitt. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the SPI was declined and closed by Mike V so that's a dead issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a diff which covers most of the changes made by the "Nano*" accounts to Silver nanoparticle: [144] It's not clear what the intent is. (Incidentally, Wikipedia needs a smarter diff engine; less changed there than the volume of changes would indicate.) It does not appear to be a promotion for "colloidal silver", a popular scam-type medication. (The Mayo Clinic says that doesn't work and may be dangerous.[145]). Not seeing any COI issues. The edits look reasonably legitimate, and have cites, but the cites are not easy to check without access to a medical library. Nobody ever put an AN/I notice on User Talk:Nanomsg or User Talk:Nanoadm, so I just did, along with a note asking them to please tell us what's going on and to read WP:ASSIGN. If they engage, this will get straightened out quickly. If we're lucky, we get some new editors with medical and chemistry expertise. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I dropped them all notes. Hopefully one of them will pass the message on to their instructor, and she or he will get in touch with Helaine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the usernames are all the word "nano" followed by the editor's initials. Nothing wrong with a group editing articles, though as usual we should make sure the edits are up to standards. As long as they're not POV-pushers, likely they just need to be pointed to WP:SCICITE and WP:MEDRS rather than accused of sockpuppetry. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by 82.132.213.175

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

---

Notifying the IP's talk page of this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let it go. It's on an experienced administrators' page and "sailing close to" is very different than sailing on to (especially if you're sailing on the downwind side of something.) NE Ent 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent - it's good to run into you again :D -- Yeah, I was questioning if making this ANI thread was the right thing to do or not. If it's skating pretty close to the edge, but isn't falling over, I'll humbly accept my ten lashings for the unnecessary thread and call it good - especially given the fact that it was left on an admin's talk page. I must be a lot more tired than I think I am. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. We don't "let it go" when it comes to legal threats. It is a legal threat even wrapped in words like "sailing very close to". It was clearly meant to intimidate. You were 100% correct to report this here, thank you. HighInBC 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies, and targeting an admin is not the smartest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the legal threat, the editor identifed that they have a COI with some sources on articles relating to aviation. Can anyone identify the possible individual or is this just more smoke? —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

After some digging, the block appeared to happen over a spat of vandalism at Badger and Clan Gunn from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying "I reserve the absolute right to be able to edit where my own research is incorrently inserted on your pages" pretty clearly indicates they don't understand how Wikipedia works, aside from everything else. At first I wondered if he was a certain past banned editor who was an aviation author, as there was a certain gut feeling from his style, but said fellow doesn't seem to have had the Ta 152 amongst his remit, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC - Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Acejet could be a sock of old blocked user Siddiqui

This case needs only behavioral analysis.

• I came across this user Marduking (Created on 18 March 2010) whose name is very similar to Mar4d (Created on 16 April 2010). Marduking has only 353 edits on English Wikipedia yet connects with Mar4d in 55 articles including many categories and one template.

• Siddiqui (Created on 9 December 2005) has 11,789 edits and connects with Mar4d in 1066 articles including 31 categories and one template

• AlphaGamma1991 (Created on 18 January 2010) has 5,718 edits connects with Mar4d in 702 articles including many categories

• Ata Fida Aziz with 1,822 edits connects in 323 articles including lists and categories

• Paknur with 1,476 edits connect 226 articles

• Mirza Barlas with 242 edits connects in 59 articles

• HamzaOmar with only 52 edits connects in 7 articles

• Last time when I suspected Mar4d was socking with Lyk4, I came to ANI instead of SPI and the result was fruitful as Wikimandia gave some extra evidence and Future Perfect at sunrise gave crucial evidence which only Administrators can see. After that Wikimandia filed SPI against Mar4d and the result was shocking.

• In this SPI back in 2011, it was found that Mar4d was using an alternate account but CU was not run as he accepted when the SPI was filed. He was left with a warning. This comment was made by HelloAnnyong:

• • Sorry, I'm not buying it. You've had Drspaz since early June 2011. You're supposed to mark your accounts as being owned by you. But even besides that, you're clearly using the accounts for less than legitimate purposes. For example, at 5:40 Drspaz makes this edit. Five minutes later you make this one. Am I really supposed to believe that in those five minutes you were suddenly on a public connection? — User:HelloAnnyong 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)-----copy pasted-----

• Acejet (Created on 13 March 2009) Siddiqui and Acejet---- Siddiqui and Lyk4.

SPI where it all began

• Moonriddengirl found credible evidence The accounts were considered stale and Mar4d was not connected.

• Why Acejet was not caught? First CU check for Siddiqui was made in July 2010. Acejet made this edit on 21 April 2010. After that he stopped editing for months and edited on 6 January 2011.

• Mar4d admitted that he has office accounts. Most likely scenario is that when Check Users were checking Siddiqui socks, at that time Mar4d and Lyk4 were being operated from office.

The Avengers 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good finding, I have no doubt here. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators can see the details and if this is correct, then they must be re-tagged as Siddiqui socks.The Avengers 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But still the appropriate place to report this is SPI. You just need to post this information there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of Copyvio notice

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

---

A week ago, I deleted some copyvios on the Nazi architecture page. Most of them included a source reference at the end, but no indication that it was a direct quotation, nor where it began and ended. It turns out that they were much longer than the "brief quotations" allowed by WP:COPYVIO. Some investigation showed that these passages (and many more) had been added by two users 10 years ago; also that the initial version of the article was a large block of unsourced text. Even today, most of the text of the article seems to come from these three suspicious sources. I documented this in Talk:Nazi architecture and tagged the article with db-copyvio. User:MER-C changed this to Copyviocore and listed the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 29.

Since then, User:IQ125 has removed the template three times:

• IQ125 removed the Copyviocore template.
• I reverted, with Edit comment:

(a) you have restored some of the known copy vios; b) this is not correct procedure.. you need to discuss; c) it doesn't matter how many editors have contributed if most of the text is derivative of copy vios

• IQ125 again removed the Copyviocore template (and restored copyvio content I had removed).
• I wrote him on his Talk page, explaining in more detail that this was not an appropriate action, and restored the Copyviocore template.
• IQ125 again removed the notice.
• IQ125 appears not to understand our policies, so I wrote him a final explanation on his talk page, but did not revert.

Nazi architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'd appreciate it if an administrator would clarify to him our policies on Copyvio and on removing Copyvio templates. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the copyvio template and warned the user. I will be watching this as it unfolds. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Reported to me by an IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05 new users

Originally reported to me on my talk page, I thought I'd post this here:

"New users, NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 123.136.111.59 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"

However, they haven't provided any evidence for this in terms of diffs, so it can't yet be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05.

-- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism

Since we now seem to have stopped him from making dubious edits to enwiki using the edit filter, it looks like User:Léogâne Paix has been on a cross-wiki editing spree, editing fr:Léogâne, ht:Leyogàn (komin), it:Léogâne and pl:Léogâne to add a dubious flag and even more dubious information in infoboxes. I don't speak all these languages, or know their internal procedures -- how on earth does one go about dealing with this sort of cross-wiki vandalism? Is there some sort of global edit filter, or global blocklist? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

For global blocks, talk to the stewards. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just done so. See meta:Steward requests/Global. User:Léogâne Paix's mixture of editing via a mixture of IPs and multiple usernames across multiple wikis makes them a difficult case, though. The only thing that's really been really effective has been the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

Please take a look at the behavior of User:Jack DeMattos. He is a professional writer who's been on WP since June 1, 2015. I've tried to make him feel welcome and given him lots of room to match his flowery, editorial, magazine style writing to WP encyclopedic style, but he's not making much progress. Now he's begun to arbitrarily delete from articles all images another user has uploaded added and leave personal attacks in his edit summaries, like this: "Removed obviously bogus photo supposed to be Charles E. Bassett. This is yet another unfortunate example submitted by a serial purveyor of photo photos of Wild West figures. This person is single handedly turning Wipipedia into 'Wackypedia." His comment is really ironic, because his contributions are pretty much in the same category. Instances of comments like this in his edit summaries include this one, another, one more, and another.

He's leaving his flowery footprints and non-sourced content all over the Old West articles. In the past week this has included Pat Garrett; Bill Tilghman; Bat Masterson; and Billy the Kid.

Oon Friday 4 December he made big changes to Bill Tilghman and removed hatnotes about the article quality that he had not fixed, but added to; over the weekend he was hitting Billy the Kid; the latter article is quite a mess now. His references can't be authenticated by anyone because he doesn't leave proper citations. In some instances his refs aren't refs, but footnotes full of ancillary info not pertinent to the article, like references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31 in Bill Tilghman. Everyplace he goes, another editor needs to follow behind and clean up his contributions, if only someone had the time. You can see all his contributions here.

Other editors have taken his behavior to the Admin noticeboard twice before (here and here), and he's promised to do better, but he really doesn't appear to be listening. The help he's been offered, his actions in return, and the warnings given, etc, are summarized in several posts on his Talk page. I don't feel like he's giving any heed to the praise, direction, encouragement OR warnings I've left on his talk page.

I'm running out of patience and his contributions are becoming more of detriment than a help. I think it may be time for a short block to get his attention. Your input is most warmly welcomed. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Billy the Kid is nearly unreadable, and the Tilghman article is almost as bad. Thinking about reverting his changes completely. Not a big fan of MOS blocks, but if he's not getting the message, maybe it's time. This is damaging the encyclopedia. Katie^talk 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack DeMattos has deleted photos that I and others have contributed to wiki without even asking if there is provenance or substantial evidence. He seems to believe that he is the only one that can contribute to the pages about the people he writes about. Some of the comments he made regarding photos from an important Old West collection: "Deleted bogus photo. Once again this has been submitted by a person with a track record with offering phony photos to Wikipedia articles.this is not, nor ever will be, one of them." Being a published historian does not automatically make one experienced at identifying historical people. True West, Jack Demattos and several other top published writers recently made a fool of themselves [at least that is what the majority believes] when they gave their negative opinions on the latest possible Billy the Kid photograph before the program about it aired on National Geographic. The show revealed fantastic evidence that gave the photo a very high percentage of being Billy and his friends. Since then, the owners and the filmmaker have established provenance for the photo and will be airing their findings soon in another program. The producer/owner of the film company has shown excited interest in the photos from this same collection that Jack has declared as bogus. Jack DeMattos should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't correct for the public's number one information resource. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the third time this same issue has been brought here. This user does not seem to be getting it. They have gotten a lot of advice but don't seem to be taking it. That sort of text is more suited to a cheap western paperback story than an encyclopedia. HighInBC 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to, the OP or the subject of the complaint? BMK (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He means the subject of the complaint. DeMattos has been here several times for the same issues. Anyway, I did some emergency copy edits to Bill Tilghman and added two sources. I guess it's a little better now, though one of the sources I added should probably be replaced by a better one, as it's a primary source written by Tilghman's widow. It'll do for now, though. I don't want to follow this guy around and perform copy edits on all the articles he edits, but it seems like there should be some way to retain his expertise. I don't know. If he won't change, I guess maybe something does need to be done. I'd prefer some kind of mentorship or something, but I hear those often end disastrously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DeMattos is still turning the Billy the Kid page into an expanded outline instead of an encyclopedia article, and he's obviously ignoring this discussion. Katie^talk 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

He replied to me about the ANI notice on his talk page. I asked him to bring his comments here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from previously blocked user

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

---

Reporting Bigbaby23. Previously blocked editor keeps inserting grammar errors, punctuation errors, and peacock language into Holly Holm, a BLP (1, 2, 3, 4). Violation of 3RR as well. User continually ignores attempts at communication and ignores the policies cited while resorting to name calling in edit summaries. -- James26 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BoomerangBigbaby23 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not how that works. --Tarage (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see myself violating the three-revert rule within a 24-hour period on the page's history. You have, though. -- James26 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Bigbaby23, not you James. He clearly needs a time out. --Tarage (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment was directed at him as well. Yes, a time out would do some good. -- James26 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment meant, that I am tired of editors pushing their agenda with bulshit citation of policy aka gaming the system. There is no peacock language, he doesnt care about punctuation etc. He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss. The lead in the article is well cited and creates interest for the reader to read on.By Boomerang I meant not only should James 6 not be rewarded with this editorial behaviour, but punished for it. Really, this whole game puts me on the verge of wanting to stop contributing to wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And 'what' a loss that would be... --Tarage (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bigbaby23 - You may want to retract the personal attack in your statement there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

i'll drop my two cents, as someone who encountered this problem editor long ago, doing exactly the same things and following up nastily and harassingly. Thank you so much for blocking them, and please make it permanent. This user is aptly and trollfully named. WP:NOTHERE — Smuckola(talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"He is a Ronda Rousey fan that has been gutted inside by her humiliating loss."

An incorrect assumption, and irrelevant. -- James26 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

User 2005 has an implied legal threat posted on their talk page. Under the heading 'No Drama/Stalker Free Zone' it says:

"Please do not add soap opera or other personal drama content to this page as it will only be removed."

And then:

"The Wikimedia Foundation is located in California. California Penal Code § 653 makes it a crime with a penalty of up to one year in jail for any person to use electronic communication with intent to annoy or harass."

It's clear this is an implied legal threat intended for anybody who violates the first sentence. As such it is against Wikipedia policy.

Popcorntastesgood (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A weak threat at best Popcorntastesgood - @User 2005: would you consider removing this text? -- samtar ^whisper 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd also recommend removing it. I'm unaware of the background of either user or how they relate to one another, but offhand I can say that putting this on your talk page does not make you seem like an easy person to approach and will immediately put other users on the defensive because they don't know how you will interpret what they say. It might be a weak threat, but it can still be seen as a threat by other users that you may pursue legal action. You might not actually do anything, but it can still make it difficult to really work with other people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Popcorntastesgood is a sockpuppet of the many times blocked stalker Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DegenFarang. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about but it appears you've just admitted to threatening an editor. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And regardless that is not something that should be on your talk page, or on anyone else's, ever. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it reaches the threshold of violating the letter of WP:NLT; but it clearly violates the spirit and purpose of that policy. The intent is clearly to have a chilling effect on posts by anyone posting to the talk page. If @2005: wants some sort of notice to behave appropriately on the talk page - instead of the state codes, better references to use would be towards WP policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:USERPAGE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment doesn't have anything to do with a chilling effect on "anyone" making user page comments. It's a statement of fact. And, it wouldn't be an issue with anybody if not for the stalker (who has previously been permanently banned) creating another identity to report it and waste people's time here. 2005 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't be intellectually dishonest. There are zillions of facts that could conceivably go on your talk page, so unless your choice of this particular fact was completely random, you put it there for a reason, to stop people from posting annoying or harassing messages. I can understand and sympathize with that, but not with your denying its clear and obvious purpose. Own up to why its there and make your arguments for why it should stay, but don't try to tell us that it's not there to do what it's obvious it's there to do. BMK (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I will sue you" is also a statement of fact, at least if one follows through to it, but that doesn't make it allowable under WP:NLT. LjL (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's not intended to chill comments, then it doesn't need to be on your page. If it needs to be on your page, then it is intended to chill comments. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption

User:@DreamGuy: with this -edit and this edit with the summary maybe someone with a clear head can say if what you say is true are clearly intended to inflame a situation previously listed here at AN/I after probably but not yet rejected from arbcom and goad me into an edit war. I ask someone intervenes. Gnangarra 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can say with great confidence -- as anyone who follows ArbCom should be able to -- that the case will be rejected, as it's clearly not arbitration worthy at this point. I don't see an NPA in Dream Guy's comment, but I do see in your edit a failure to get the message aimed at you from the previous discussion here, which is that your judgment in this controversy has not been the best. As an WP:INVOLVED admin, you really shouldn't be editing these post cards out of articles -- leave it to others who are not entangled to decide. (Which is also, I believe, Dream Guy's point.) That you, an admin, see this as a "Personal Attack with clear intent to cause distruption" is a bit disconcerting. BMK (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

For two weeks I have been harassed daily by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed. I've had enough: the allegations are all false but they come tumbling out: 1) Nov 24: "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion". Nov 24: Snowded alleged WP:OR and WP:OWN. Nov 24: Snowded wrote: "The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire." Nov 25: Wiki-Ed writes: "Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources." etc etc, they never stop. I have repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false. They seem to believe I have a secret POV agenda, Which I deny. I've written a lot of books and articles and scholarly venues, but I've not published anything about the British Empire and have no secret agenda. I repeatedly demand proof or evidence, or even which section is at fault. They repeatedly refuse to answer--Dec 8: Rjensen: "Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV?" Snowded: "Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs." This is sustained harassment by two editors who have never edited Historiography of the British Empire, which has been active since Oct 2008, and which overlaps very little with the article they try to protect British Empire. Other editors on the page have largely supported me, not these two. I request User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed by kept away from Talk:Historiography of the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concern that Riensen is building an alternative article to the British Empire one under the guise of historiography. Hence the issue of the need to deal first with the whole structure not paragraph by paragraph within his structure. The comments he has made about the inadequacies of the British Empire article support the view that this may be a coatrack. When this started I asked Riensen for his authority for the structure and he quoted two sources, one of which is suitable. However he would not share the detailed contents so I have bought the book and said clearly on the talk page that I will check that against the structure and come back with a proposal for change later this week. That has resulted in a torrent of personal abuse and a refusal to simply wait and see. No one is harassing Rjensen, no changes have yet been made to the article. He daily (well hourly and more stridently as the day does on) launches at attacks on the talk page to which I have tried to respond politely. I for one am trying to engage him on the talk page but that is very difficult given his clearly expressed contempt for editors who do not share his academic qualifications. In respect of the quote where he says that he has " repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false" I invite third party review. He states that the claims areas false and asserts that he has included multiple views but he has yet to address the main objection namely that an article on historiography should be about that, not a collection of statements from historians organised into (his words) an eclectic structure. When there are concrete proposals for change on the talk page then he can respond and I expect we will have an RFC and possibly dispute resolution before this is over. For the moment the only possible community action is to ask Rjensen to stop his multiple personal attacks. This is not even a content dispute yet and the fact he has brought it here illustrates the problem :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Snowded has never made a substantive edit on this article (and very few on British Empire article). I believe he has not been familiar with the historiography of the British Empire or even the word itself. Instead he tags the article and says that as soon as he reads a book he will propose sweeping changes. In my opinion he is primarily motivated to protect the other article British Empire. It is not under threat, for there is little overlap and it reaches a very different audience. The historiography article was created in October 2008 & has caused no serious controversy until 2 weeks ago, when Snowded tagged it as POV WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. He says the problem is "structure" but has been unable to explain what he means. He says he will explain himself later but keeps the tags to delegitimize the article. On 12:53, 5 December 2015‎ Qexigator tried to remove them with the edit summary: "the tags have been sufficiently discussed to show that they are not correct, please do not needlessly or casually encourage disruption." Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oexigator's removal of the tags was reverted twice by another experienced user namely User:Wee Curry Monster with the comment "discussions are ongoing and valid concerns remain - edit warring over tags you should know better)" The reason for the tags has been clearly explained, what will come later this week is a assessment of Rjensen's source and a proposal for a way forward. Not sure why he can't wait ----Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear case of harassment. In view of the discussion complained of by Rjensen, I repeat here: "Let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the discussion, or who has forgotten, an earlier comment (of mine) there that the discussion has been more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen (in the discusion) an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment (by the harassing party): You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how anything you said above shows that this is a case of WP:HARASSMENT. LjL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree I see no case for harassment. It sounds like criticism. Snowded also provided no diffs showing Riensen made any personal attacks. This should be worked out on the talk page. I agree this article is seriously problematic: This article should not be concerning history itself but historiography; see Historiography of the United States. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen has made personal attacks, but it's more about the tone. However, since you asked, here are some examples: Snowded is 'ignorant' [146]; Snowded has 'pretty slim' writing experience [147]; Snowded's view is 'nonsense' [148]; Snowded is making 'false and incoherent statements' (plus some disparaging comments on expertise and motive) [149]. Snowded has received the majority of the attacks over the last week, but I've also been branded 'ignorant' [150] (different article but same topic) and lack a 'deep knowledge' [151]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. Thank you for the link to the article on US historiography - that's a nice example of the approach we should be aiming for with the article in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. It needs to be strictly on the historiography or it's likely to be deleted as POV fork. Rjensen should probably be warned over the comments - calling people "ignorant" etc is neither helpful nor allowed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is yet a case of harassment, but User:Snowded could focus more on the specific issues with the page and less on User:Rjensen's motivations - Snowded starting the talk page debate with claims that this is a coatrack, asserting that the whole page should be deleted, and quoting OR and OWN were not the most constructive approach. The page is, from a quick skim, about what it says it is (historians' takes on the British Empire), and changes to the content will require consulting sources and discussing how to best use them (do ask WikiProject History for help). Rjensen should avoid using words like "ignorant", but he has also faced personal comments. Fences&Windows 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is too much about history and historical criticism of the British Empire; neither of that is historiography. See other historiography articles like Historiography of the United States, Historiography of the French Revolution and Historiography of the Cold War. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to agree that the discussion may not have started off in the best way and to take my share of responsibility for that. But I have been trying since to move it forward - you will see a section talking about the need for some changes to the main article. But overall yes I think it is a coatrack article in the main I spent about three hours yesterday (as promised last week) going through Winks' Historiography of the British Empire to work through a possible structure and will post on that later in the week (although the other articles referenced may short circuit that a bit). Remember I didn't bring the matter here, Rjensen has done his best in the last week to tell me that I am "ignorant" etc. and I have made it clear that if that continues then it might be necessary to bring an ANI case. That seems to have been the trigger to a pre-emptive strike in trying to remove myself and Wiki-Ed from the article. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have Historiography of the British Empire on my watchlist and have become increasingly concerned that is being turned into a WP:COATRACK article reflecting the views of its principle author. The article is sourced but its an example of WP:SYN where the principle author selects principle sources that reflect their own POV, rather than trying to give a balanced view of the range of opinion in published literature. If I may observe that the principle authors seems to be approaching this as an academic paper rather than an article for an online encyclopedia. As such its becoming a candidate for deletion as a POV fork. In addition, RJensen is alternating between arguing from authority and personal abuse (diffs above). The intervention from Qexigator has also been unhelpful, first of all [152] accusing editors of picking a quarrel, removing tags when there was clearly an ongoing discussion [153],[154] and backing up a false claim here of harassment. I fear that unless the uncivil behaviours are nipped in the bud this will likely end at arbcom. WCM_email 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I too, having it on my watchlist, have read the course of the discussion differently, and see the above comment, and others like it, as one-sided veering to travesty. The incivility, as I see it, is largely aimed against the complaining party. Let us see some balance in responses. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen responds: On the structure of the article I have said this repeatedly: the topics selected are those chosen by the RS, especially the three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell. As for the comparison with the article on the historiography of the United States. I wrote most of that article. There are multiple schools of thought on American history, and that article is structured by those schools. We do not have multiple schools of thought on the British Empire so it is impossible to use a schools structure and no RS has attempted to do so. Instead historians tackle separate topics, arranged by chronology, by regions, and by such themes as religion, gender, slavery, etc. The Historiography of the British Empire is therefore organized by chronology, geography, and themes. To quote from the preface to Winks Historiography vol 5 P xiv: "The organization of this volume is chronological, thematic, and regional. The opening chapters survey the historiography of the Empire from its origins through the period of the American revolution.... Thematic chapters in this part of the volume include those dealing with exploration and empire, science and medicine, gender, slavery and the slave trade, and missions and empire....The regional chapters include separate accounts of the historiography of the West Indies, (etc)." For context please see Winks at Winks (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V: Historiography. p. 14. The "Historiography of the British Empire" article therefore is based on a standard structure used by the RS. As for my rhetoric, I never called anyone "ignorant". I stated: "Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography." As for "false": I made that allegation in rejecting his specific claims about my intentions. As for the coat rack allegation: this article is entirely about the historians of the British Empire and their ideas and debates. That is what historiography is all about. The events and dates and historic developments of the British Empire are "history": and are in the article on the British Empire. That history material is not duplicated here. There's very little overlap in text or in the footnotes. In my opinion, Snowded has repeatedly challenged my good faith by asserting that I have a secret POV. When challenged he is unable to identify that POV or find any POV statements anywhere in the article. Snowded has announced that his intention is to radically reduce or eliminate this article. see Nov 30 He has announced his strong POV ahead of time and has locked himself into a position where he cannot edit in good faith. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to admit I had not read Winks before this encounter (although I am enjoying it so thanks). I do however know the difference between historiography and history. I asked Rjensen for his primary source for the structure of the article and having been told, went out and bought it. Per multiple comments on the talk page and here I then promised to come back this week having done that with specific proposals. I did think that would be well received but it wasn't. Otherwise I'm also happy to confirm that everything I have read says that a lot of this material does not belong in an article on historiography; but if you check the talk page I have suggested (and will be more concrete in that suggestion later) that a lot of the material may belong in other articles that can be referenced. All of that seems to have been misinterpreted and I do think there is a ownership problem here. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Troll at Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks

Identified a new editor who's stated purpose and only edits are summed up as "Without a criticism section, elaborating on the opinion that the event (Paris terrorist attacks) was a hoax".[155] See their user page where they clearly state their intention User:Justitia_Nai and their generally trollish edits all to the talk page Special:Contributions/Justitia_Nai. I don't think they are here to build the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They want a criticism section added. That's not trolling. I take it you don't want a criticism section? Branding a new user you disagree with a troll is not very constructive. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There's many eyes already on that article. It is subject to active community sanctions as noted on the talk page. Any impropriety will be efficiently dealt with. -- œ^™ 10:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism is not the same as introducing WP:FRINGE theories that the event was a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with them, discuss it on talk pages. Disagreement doesn't mean they are trolling nor is it a reason to block them. Popcorntastesgood (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the recent Paris Terrorist Attacks are not a HOAX - hence this user is trolling with a Single Purpose Acct. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And considering they wanted to use this and this as sources...well that says a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah these are everywhere. Whenever a mass shooting/terrorist attack happens, there are immediately people posting videos and articles with fake photos and witnesses to claim it's all a government hoax. Trutherism seems to be a cottage industry guaranteed to make money off YouTube hits and Google hits because of the sheep who believe everything they read. Excuse me now, I'm going to go make an outraged video about how the World Series didn't happen and it's all a hoax. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe one about how that wasn't really Kyle Busch winning the Sprint Cup when he came back from his injury might do even better! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I knew the Giants were robbed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was just going to block indef, but since a DS notice was placed on their page, and they haven't posted anywhere since, I'll limit myself to archiving the idiocy on the talk page and making sure they understand the trolling/fringe pushing is over. Please post here or tell an admin if one more incidence of trolling occurs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. We're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant trolling. I agree with the above. GAB^Hello! 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈^(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.

The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

• September 2015: misleading edit summary
• August 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: STSC makes major changes to the Hong Kong article with the edit summary "ce". The edits censor the reason behind the 2014 Hong Kong protests (i.e. universal suffrage), delete information on police abuses, delete reference to the largely peaceful nature of the protest. I reverted these edits once and STSC places a warning template on my talk page to intimidate me. I give up.
• May 2015: Misleading edit summary - removes reference to Hong Kong as having a "high degree of autonomy", again deleting reference to Hong Kong's autonomy, egregiously misleading edit summary
• March 2015: rm reference to police abuses despite being referenced to Time magazine
• February 2015: misleading edit summary
• January 2015: misleading edit summary
• November 2014: Censorship of well-sourced and widely reported material about the credibility of a pro-government group's survey, reverts again with edit summary referring to WP:CRYSTALBALL (does not apply), places personal attack warning template on my talk page while I have never made any personal attacks, again, I beefed up the sources, more censorship, I open a lengthy talk page discussion, he blanks 3000 bytes of referenced material, I gave up.
• December 2014: misleading edit summary, incomplete edit summary - placing badge of People's Liberation Army in place of the Cenotaph, low-key agenda editing, misleading edit summary, rm photo of protesters, rm reference to large numbers of protesters citing the CBC, a reliable source; totally rm reference to protests in Central and Wan Chai that shut down highways and roads and were publicised in numerous reliable sources
• November 2014: censor photo of protests, ditto, more photo censorship, ridiculous photo censorship with no distinction between impartial coverage of the protests, and actual NPOV behavior, more attempted censorship of this particular banner
• October 2014: spamming articles with fringe theories about how the U.S. government supposedly instigated the 2014 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests (1, 2), censorship - Beijing's nomination committee IS what the protests were about,
• September 2014: delete reference to Hong Kong as a former British colony
• September 2014: changing the Hong Kong infobox to show Putonghua (Mandarin) as the "national language" of Hong Kong, with Cantonese as a "regional language". For those unfamiliar with China/Hong Kong, Putonghua is the language promoted by the national government in Beijing. Cantonese is the language spoken by 95% of Hong Kong people
• September 2014: "fixing style/layout errors" - but in fact making major changes to the infobox, i.e. changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation"

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([156][157][158][159][160]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jhona43

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

---

Resolved

I am a newcomer here so am sorry if this is not the right place to request help. I am creating articles about past Australian cricketers. Today I created an article Allan Young (cricketer). Just in the first minute when I wrote the first line of the article, the user Jhona43 put a tag on the article that the article was unreferenced. I was taken aback but after completing the article I went to Jhona43's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhona43 and requested him to not put such tags in the first minute. I noticed on the talk page of the user that many other editors have complained about the same thing to Jhona43. I checked further and found that Jhona43 never replies to any such request made to him to stop reviewing articles like this.

I request Wikipedia managers to ask Jhona43 to stop reviewing new articles. Gracias. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We're all volunteers. There are no managers here as such. Now, step one - I notice that you posted on Jhona43's talk page one minute after posting here. Usually, we ask that you discuss problems with other editors before coming here. Was there discussion on a talk page somewhere that we missed? I also notified Jhona of this post, so that he can come here and participate in this discussion.

As for the issue of an incomplete article being tagged? It happens. People don't always see how new the article is, or know that you are actively editing it. You can always start it in your userspace at User:Xender Lourdes/Draft or some such. Or create the article in the Draft userspace. Then you can take your sweet time and finish it at your pace, adding information and references and whatnot. Once that's done, you can have it moved to the main article title - and then you're done. It's really not a huge issue, in the scheme of things. But there's no violation of policy here, as far as I can see. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Missed your notification of Jhona, sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow that. I am new here so do not understand the way some of the things work here. That is why I was a bit taken aback at getting an unreferenced tag. And then a bit more when I saw some other editors telling Johna43 to not bite new editors by tagging immediately. I also didn't know there are no managers here. I thought administrators are managers. Thank you for replying with the advice. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think new editors would be better off starting drafts either in draftspace or their own userspace as the new page patrolling can be a little quick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The "creating a new article" page mentions creating the article in one's userspace at the bottom of a 5-bullet-point list, and Wikipedia:Your first article mentions it as item 7 of 7 after a longish introduction. New editors may actually be better off starting articles in draftspace (which isn't mentioned in either of those two locations) or their own userspace, but the guidance to do so is really thoroughly inadequate. Suggesting that a new user do so after encountering problems from an over-reaching user is really kind of WP:BITEY. Argyriou (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong. I'll mention this to Jhona. Was waiting for a comment here from them, but they appear to have apologized on their talk page for not allowing the editor 10 minutes to complete the article before tagging it. So, some concerns there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona43 is also not discussing other issues when they are queried, e.g tagging a new article as unreferenced when it had six references and then removing the query from the article creator. Their own page creations are very limited and two were speedily deleted under other titles (and I have just nominated one for deletion). I would advise Jhona43 to hold back from reviewing brand new pages as they were already advised on their talk page, and to engage more themselves in quality content creation - so they know how to assess - and improve - pages when acting as a new page patroller. Fences&Windows 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhona has replied very considerately on the User talk:Jhona talk page. May I request that this post of mine be withdrawn or closed as I am very satisfied with the guidance provided by helpful editors here and also by the response of User:Jhona. I have also joined the Guild of Copy Editors who have a notice that can be put up on top of an article when I am working on it. This notice informs any review editor that they may wait for some time before reviewing. May I also comment that I do not feel bitten, specially because of all the responses guiding me. (I did not know what the word meant till I read the Wikipedia page on it) Thank you all Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:NetworkBooster

So I just wanted to bring attention to User:NetworkBooster. I think their account may be a WP:VOA and WP:NOTHERE may apply. Their two edits consist of vandalism in relation to Jim McMahon (politician) - McMahon's page and my user page. Their edit summary at McMahon's page was also false stating "Background information gathered from Oldham City Council." I warned them their first edit was not constructive. Not the most serious case, but may be useful to deal with early on. AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Fences&Windows 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Threats made by user Baseballbugs

Th-th-th-that's all folks! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=694183865&oldid=694179234 He's intentionally threatened to do harm to another wikipedian. This is totally against policy here and I would like to ask an admin investigate and take appropriate action to prevent this from happening in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.238.124 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) At most he's suggesting harm to rubber duckies belonging to a racist disruptive troll, if I understand who he is talking about. This is hardly a credible threat and certainly not a threat to any Wikipedian. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 94.195.18.40 modifying talk page contributions made by other editors.

IP re-factoring other editors talk page contributions @ Talk:National_Front_(France) Welcomed [161], then requested not to modify [162] and explained reason, reverted the original contribution [163], IP then accused me edit warning [164]. I would revert, but I believe the IP is trying to force a blockable offence. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They self-reverted and apologised. Hopefully 94.195.18.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) will avoid changing others' talk page comments in that manner in future. Fences&Windows 21:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AIV help please

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

---

Sorry to bother the busy admins here, but could someone help out with the backlog of reports at AIV please. There is at least one IP who has continued vandalizing for nearly an hour since he was reported there. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleared by many admins helping out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Hollister Co. being hit by IP vandals

Hollister Co. is being hit every few days by IP vandals. The IP addresses change, so there's no point in blocking them.

• [165] (Petty vandalism)
• [166] (Petty vandalism)
• [167] (May not be vandalism, but no cite for big change in store count.)

Request some semi-protection. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism is too sporadic for semi-protection. Plus, this really belongs at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by editor already under WP:TBAN

A partisan POV user Hugh (talk) is unable to accept consensus, insisting that his sources are impeccable (while his paraphrase is not) and has started four duplicative talk page segments on identical topic:

1. Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent assessments of partisanship
2. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship
3. Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology
4. Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

The fourth being an RfC to to overturn a 3 to 1 consensus in an article where the editor is already under topic block.Diff In yet another wall of text, the editor has created an extensive overview from his point of view. After I added my "Additional by opposing editor:",Diff to his interpretation of "Opposing views" the editor summarily moved this, relevant RfC logic, to a less conspicuous position WP:TPO (a location beneath my Oppose vote),Diff retaining only my signature, making it appear to evaluators that this was the original location -- this is WP:SIGFORGE IMHO. Disregarding the topic ban, the editor continues edit in the article space.Diff Diff Per the very broadWP:TBAN,Diff (appeal was denied) the Koch, Franklin Center, Donors Trust connections have been stated in the article, sourced and unchallenged at Watchdog.org.Diff Apparently, the editor has also taken to stalking User:Safehaven86's talk page, Diff and has been rummaging around in my contributions, now scrutinizing the latest article that I've donated.Diff It has been suggested in Arbitration that the editor should be blocked from American politics entirely.[168] In closing, I believe there is a hopeless bias and an inability for this editor to function neutrally in the entire topic of American politics. This editor's COI (perhaps undeclared paid?) editing is disruptive and perhaps unhealthy. My disclosure: I do take on paid editing (mostly biography cleanups) all of the works mentioned here are voluntary where I have no paid association. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It does look like he is violating his TBAN on Tea Party topics, since Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which he was blocked for editing, and when he appealed ARB determined that editing this topic indeed violated his ban.[169] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hugh

No disruptive edits. An RfC is often preceded by related talk page discussion. An RfC is often initiated by an editor in a minority in a local consensus. An RfC is how the we broaden community discussion to address an apparent local consensus which possibly contravenes policy. This is a straightforward content disagreement improperly escalated to ANI. Involved editors are respectfully requested to return to article talk to make their best policy- and guideline-based case to exclude relevant, neutral, well-sourced content.

No violation of topic ban as per recent failed, harassing AE request for enforcement; our project's article Watchdog.org is out of scope "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN", except for, until very recently, part, as per WP:TBAN 4th bullet: the funding section where a dubious "blocking" mention of a banned topic was inserted by the AE complainant in a sad failed attempt to advance an ugly harassing AE filing.

Respectfully request decline action and quick close. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing topics related to your TBAN is itself disruptive. Why are you on this talk page at all? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to recent Arb request. It does appear you are able to edit Watchdog.org so long as nothing is related to the Tea Party or the Koch brothers, although I can't see the logic in this since the Koch brothers are major investors in Watchdog. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Respectfully may I request a strike-thru of your comment one subsection above as well? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've struck through. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Response by 009o9

I see that the editor has the respect enough here to ask you to strike your comments, rather than moving them out of context.Diff The topic ban for Donors Trust, Koch topics and Franklin Center related aside (all three apply), this opinion so far does not address the disruptive editing WP:REHASH, retribution via user page stalking[170], [171] and now the RfC (user talk) modification and signature forgery (by omission).Diff As a paid editor, I'm walking on eggshells around here, do you think I would have brought this to ANI for a minor issue? Everything I have seen the editor propose is WP:CHERRY nothing is WP:BALANCE, I can't go anywhere near this kind of WP:ADVOCACY for my subjects. He is quite expert at presenting different persona to different audiences; for example, changing a section heading name, that includes a personal endorsement of his sources, removing them just minutes before requesting outside input from WP:30. Diff, Diff Forgive me, but I was thinking that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX might apply. Respectfully requesting a closer look be taken here. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 00:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Safehaven86

It's clear that HughD is violating his Koch/tea party topic topic ban by continuing to edit at Watchdog.org, in an article that states it is "the primary media investment of the Koch brothers...." As this is a topic ban violation, however, it should be brought up at arbitration enforcement. Other related issues with HughD's editing may need to be addressed here, but the immediate issue seems to be that he's aggressively editing a Koch-related article while banned from editing Koch-related articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. However, AE just yesterday determined he is allowed to edit at Watchdog.org despite his TBAN on Tea Party and Koch Brothers. It's totally illogical. Callanecc stated that "Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN." I think it's clear there is an issue here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw the AE close and when I noticed HughD was continuing to edit the Watchdog article full speed ahead, I posted on Callanecc's talk page to ask for clarification. Hopefully we'll get some. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody actually looked at the original block and ban? The one year TBAN and "anything at all related to" appears to be pretty concise.

• ===Tea Party movement=== "HughD (talk · contribs) topic-banned from any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)"[172] Pinging @User:Ricky81682 on this one.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• In User_talk:Ricky81682#HughD.27s_ban Admin Ricky81682 directly informed (admin?) Callanecc (AE closing editor) of the all inclusive terms on 18 October 2015, so it looks like Ricky81682 has been stabbed in the the back. The scope of the one week block and one year ban is also clarified to HughD here: User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 04:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I can't understand this. That was a bad call. Watchdog.org is clearly within the scope of the TBAN. They allowed him to edit here and within 48 hours he's already at ANI. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone wants to chime in here: User talk:Callanecc#Question on arbitration enforcement. Safehaven86 (talk)

Tanbircdq and Israeli politician articles

I would like to bring to wider attention of other admins the edits of Tanbircdq (talk · contribs), whose actions I have come across at Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955). Tanbircdq has a quite clear agenda, adding quotes to articles on Israeli politicians in which they say bad things about the Palestinians. On many of these articles he has added the information several times after being reverted by a number of users; these include:

• Eli Yishai (x4)
• Avi Dichter (x4)
• Michael Ben-Ari (x4)
• Yisrael Katz (x3)
• Omri Sharon (x3)
• Meir Sheetrit (x2)
• Ayelet Shaked (x2)
• Ya'akov Yosef (x1)
• Naftali Bennett (x1)

Also of slight concern is the behaviour of Makeandtoss (talk · contribs), who has magically appeared at several of these articles to restore the content after Tanbircdq's edits have been removed (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). I don't know this has happened, but it doesn't look good. I have pointed them towards WP:BALASPS, but this does not seem to have stopped the behaviour. Unfortunately what is happening does not fall under the current Arbcom sanctions for this topic area, but I think it needs some intervention. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't remember how I came across these articles, all I know that I reverted the removal of sourced content. I didn't see WP:BALASPS valid enough to remove the quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have given a very clear and detailed explanation on the talk page which I will not repeat again here. Number 57 has reverted the edit without adequately responding to the points raised on the talk page and taken the matter to ANI in order to get administrative action taken against me in what would appear to be an underhand way of censorship. In addition, Number 57 himself violated 1RR on the page with his edits here and here without initiating discussion of the matter on the talk page.

What Number 57 has conveniently omitted to mention is that most of the "number of users" who have removed the content from those articles included sock puppet accounts, throwaway IP hoppers who are now prohibited from editing those articles because of ARBPIA3 decision after the high level of disruptive editing that was present.

I would also like to point out Number 57's uncivilised personal attack of "Go away with your agenda please. Get consensus on talk if you insist on this nonsense." in the summary of his revert here.

Nevertheless, I am interested to know what Wikipedia policy I am supposed to have actually violated here. Is the accusation of "editing articles with an agenda" an ad hominem term for someone adding sourced content when another thinks WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would seem that Number 57 himself has an WP:OWN agenda to remove content that shows someone he favours in a "bad light" which (by using his words from the talk page) I believe "has no place on Wikipedia". Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you think I favour these politicians? As a Meretz supporter, I think most of them are repugnant; the difference is that I understand the concept of NPOV and that Wikipedia is not a place to badmouth your political opponents.

Is anyone going to intervene here? Number 57 19:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring to all these politicians, just Yisrael Katz, and this was based on your comments on the talk page.

Yes, I agree (not that I have any political opponents) which is why I object to your uncivilised personal attack.

Yes, can someone please intervene about this WP:WIKIHOUNDING? This editor has clearly been stalking me for the past two months which I find very unpleasant and I would like it to stop. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the claim that this is hounding or that I have been stalking you for two months a barefaced lie. The first I saw of you was on the Katz article (and that is the only place I have reverted you). I got those diffs by going back through your editing history (it wasn't hard to find them). Number 57 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Since i consider myself involved with this user, would some kind soul review talk page section with a view to determining if this is a legal threat or other violation of policy? I have not raised the matter with them directly as there has been recent friction and I don't think any query from me would be well received Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this some sort of punitive fishing expedition for nominating your closure for a DRV? I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but no need to lash out at me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You accused another editor of libel in a section header and I'm asking for an independant opinion on that. I don't see any harm in that myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused another editor of libel, I documented their libel. Using a correct legal definition is not the same as making a legal threat. The only thing they have in commons is the word legal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not accused [sic] another editor of libel, I documented their libel.

Ah, welcome to the latest episode of Question Begging Time. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no clear or inferred legal threat -- samtar ^whisper 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the question here is because of the use of the word "libel" in a section header. However, I read it as a characterization of something, rather than as an implied threat to engage in legal action regarding the so-called "libel". If that's what we are talking about, then that is not an NLT violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I'd second that reasoning -- samtar ^whisper 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the correct term for a lie in print form. If he said it to me in person, it would have been slander. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. The correct NON-LEGAL term for a lie in print is "lie". You're invoking a legal term, with its implications of legal consequences due to damage. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're trying to sail as close to the wind as you can. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the target of the comment, and I did not take it as a legal threat in the sense meant by WP:NLT. BMK (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Beyond My Ken had made was that this "is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." The fact is that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) had edited every one of those articles before BMK did, per the revision statistics for G. W. Pabst (which RAN edited more than four years before BMK), Louis Comfort Tiffany (four-plus years before BMK) and List of mayors of New York City (a year-plus before BMK). I think it's clear that what RAN means is that BMK had been making a false statement in writing that was damaging to RAN's reputation, not that RAN had intended to take BMK to court and file a tort claim of libel. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OMG! You mean I was wrong!! How nice of you to come to AN/I (and RAN's talk page) and let me know.

Of course, you did neglect to mention that RAN's last edit to Louis Comfort Tiffany before he reverted me was in April 2008 [173], two years before my first edit in July 2010 [174], so I wouldn't really have noticed him editing the article because he didn't while I was active on it. But, of course, he apparently decided he just had to come back and revert my edit after a 7 year absence; I guess there was nothing that happened on the article in 7 years that stirred his attention.

And what about List of mayors of New York City? Yes, indeed, RAN has all of 4 edits on that article, 3 in 2008, and the revert of my edit that, again, brought him out of hibernation after 7 years. [175]. Since I made the first of my edits to that article in March 2010 [176] -- again, two years after his last edit -- there was no reason that I would know that he had edited it before me because he didn't edit it when I was.

Alansohn, are you seeing a pattern here? Yes, you are correct that RAN had edited those articles before me, and I was incorrect in saying he hadn't, but the essence of what I said is true: RAN decided to revert my edits after 7 years of inactivity on those articles, so I was quite justified in describing his behavior as verging on harassment. I don't say that it is harassment yet, but it will be if he keeps on appearing to specifically revert edits of mine on articles which he may have edited in the distant past, but which he has been totally inactive on during the time I have been working on them. BMK (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if BMK didn't see it as a legal threat, RAN should not be throwing the word "libel" around. "Untrue" should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As BMK made multiple false statements, the characterization is entirely accurate. BMK's story now is that he was indeed making false statements alleging that RAN had never edited the articles previously, but that he was justified in making these baseless accusations because there is some imaginary "essence of what I said is true" according to him. Thanks to Wikipedia's editing history feature, it's clear that RAN edited the articles because they were on his watchlist, he had edited them years before BMK and now the problem is that the edits were too long ago so that BMK now feels that he WP:OWNs these articles so naturally anyone else editing them is guilty of harassment. Bugs, when other editors make repeated false accusations about you and your edits, feel free to limit yourself to "untrue". Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't use legalistic terms like "libel" if someone states an untruth about me. And to take libel to court and win, one would have to prove harm. He alleges he was falsely accused of making edits at some point in time. How much would the jury award in a case like that? A shiny new 25 cent piece? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Use whatever term you want. "Lie". "Misrepresentation". "Prevarication". "Fib". Pick whatever term best matches the circumstances of BMK's out-and-out falsehood. Whatever works best for you. Just don't use "truth". Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

CLAIM of falsehood. See begging the question.

Of course, a better thing for RAN to do would be to simply grow the hell up instead of throwing around pseudo-legal terms he doesn't understand. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How about "honest mistake"? That at least has the benefit of being accurate. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have bought the "honest mistake" bit if it wasn't User:Beyond My Ken who was the one making the blatantly false claims. BMK is a regular here at ANI, and is fully aware of how to review edit histories for each article he claimed RAN had never edited; He's no noob. BMK's consistent inability to work with others and to edit war over the most trivial of issues -- size of a college seal, inclusion of a full name in an article lead, personal attacks like fuck "pleonasm", it's a perfectly underestandable sentence, etc. -- demonstrates the source of the problem. If only BMK had bothered to research his threats or to back off and apologize when his claims were proven false, we wouldn't be here. It's this pattern of belligerent and abusive behavior by BMK that brings us here. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that Alansohn doesn't like me, since he shows up any time my name comes up on the noticeboards to lay out his latest litany of my liabilities to the project, and to insist that the harshest possible sanctions be placed on me. It's probably just a coincidence that this started soon after I expressed the opinion here that Alansohn was the primary problem in the dispute between himself and Magnolia677. I'd be the last person to claim that I'm the perfect Wikipedian, but I'm not sure what his obsession about me has to do with whether what RAN said was a legal threat or not. BMK (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer Alansohn's specific and relevant allegation, I did not look up the history of those pages when I posted this comment on my talk page, I was going only on my experience of editing those articles without having run into RAN - as I outlined above. I did the detailed research only when I posted my comment above, following Alansohn's statement that I was lying, since I wanted to know how we could have two completely different takes on what had occurred. As seen above, the answer is that -- at least on two of the three articles -- we never overlapped, which is why I thought he had never edited them. That was, as I said, my error. As others have said, it was not a deliberate choice on my part to post something that was not accurate. BMK (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm sure that you acknowledge that there is a big difference between 1) someone following you and undoing your edits from article to article that they have never edited before and 2) someone who is editing articles that they have edited before that are on their watchlist which they edited well before you ever touched the articles. What you stated as fact -- "Today is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." -- makes a rather specific allegation that is factually false and has been proven so. You don't own any of these articles and your recollections are no substitute for backing up your assumptions with facts. Furthermore, you acknowledge that you did recall an editing overlap with RAN on at least one of these articles. No one expects you to be a "perfect Wikipedian" -- I'm certainly not and your history makes my opinion clear regarding your track record -- but at a minimum you need to exercise far greater care in making these kinds of inherently inflammatory personal attacks. I'm glad that I was able to identify the relevant policy and address the edit war at G. W. Pabst, as I had done not long ago at Triborough Bridge, but I hope that no outside intervention will be needed to resolve any of your edit wars in the future. A clear commitment on your part to avoid such edit warring and attacks will help alleviate community concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Alansohn, there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), and someone who has never found any reason to edit an article in 7 years, but nevertheless reappears to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), none at all. It's a distinction without a difference. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK, do you really believe that "there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user"? Are you arguing that you WP:OWN every article you edit, and that any editor who edits any of your articles that's on their watchlist because they have edited in the past is necessarily harassing you? How recent do the other editor's edits have to be in order for them to be allowed to edit your articles? You've been involved with dozens upon dozens of edit wars and every one of those editors now has to avoid your edits of your articles? Please explain how your policy works. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat as there is no threat to take legal action. It hardly passes the 'intended to chill discussion' line either. However it *is* a personal attack to accuse another editor of libelling you. Libel has a strict definition which is not covered by BMK's actions. (Merely writing something that later turns out to be not 100% accurate is not libel as RAN knows perfectly well.) Given that BMK's above post quite clearly demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by RAN that is hardly good-faith editing and bordering on harrassment, I suggest an interaction ban with BMK. (I would suggest a 1-way ban, but they rarely work, and BMK has previously said he wants to not interact with RAN so this shouldnt be an issue for him) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed: Interaction ban between RAN and BMK

Support. As proposer. No comments on each other, no reverting each other on articles (with the usual BLP/vandalism exceptions) and so on. Given the diffs provided by BMK, RAN is clearly not editing with the best motives. Not to mention the blatant symantic wikilawyering which is a habit with RAN (anyone familiar with his history regarding pushing the boundaries of his existing sanctions should be aware this is a common road for him.) As 1-way bans dont work and BMK has indicated previously he does not want to interact further with RAN, this is the quickest and most efficient solution to the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support- RAN needs to leave BMK the hell alone. More generally, he needs to altogether stop pursuing people he's disagreed with. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support- shame it needs to come to this, but I think this would allow both editors to cool down, and focus on building an encyclopedia -- samtar ^whisper 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as 2-way, and with no opinion on my part as to who is more or less at fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editors seem to have overlapping interests in the same sort of articles but seem to have some difficulty knowing whether the other party shares this interest. They are therefore likely to keep bumping into each and so must just learn to get along. Neither of them brought this matter here and it seems clear that talk of legal threats is an over-reaction . Further escalation would tend to make matters worse rather than better. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - BMK needs to leave RAN the hell alone. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - As one of the two subjects of the proposed interaction ban, I've been thinking about it since I first saw the proposal this morning. My first thought was that it was a good idea, that it would get RAN out of my life, which I really want. My second thought was that it really should be a one-way ban, but I changed my mind on that: a two-way ban would be an effective tool to help myself from commenting on RAN, so I accept that if there is to be an I-Ban, it should be mutual. I do, however, have some concerns.
  Almost anyone who is familiar with RAN's history, or especially with the ArbCom cast brought against him [177] and the various AE discussions it spawned, knows that RAN is a classic boundary-pusher. If RAN is told, for instance, not to create articles, he turns a redirect into an article and claims that this is not creating an article, so he has to be told again, specifically, not to do that. This kind of thing has happened over and over again with him, and his just keeps probing. So, how do you stop a boundary-pusher from pushing the boundaries of an I-Ban?
  As it stands now, the general way one deals with an I-Ban infraction, or multiple I-Ban infractions, is to bring the case to AN/I. AN/I is, as we all know, often not the best place to get a straight-forward evaluation of a problem, what with the dramah-mongering, the cliques, the long-held grudges, and the Alansohns of the world popping up to muddy the waters. Therefore, I suggest that someone, an individual, preferably an admin, be appointed to be sort of the "special master" for the I-Ban. This would be someone either RAN or I could go to with a complaint, who would investigate, and then come back with "Yes, you're right, I've done X about it" or "No, you're being oversensitive, that's not a violation of the ban." It would be nice if the special master's decision was final, so problems could be solved and not fester.
  So, those are my concerns. I'm generally in favor of the idea of a mutual interaction ban, but I would appreciate it if some thought could go into the problem I've outlined. BMK (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support One Way I-Ban - RAN should leave BMK alone. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy/Frank Gaffney

LavaBaron has been vandalizing the Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney pages for months and appears to be a new sockpuppet of long banned user W. Frank. He's repeatedly been warned about removing content from these pages and has shown no interest in altering his editing behavior. There's no substantive dispute about the articles. He is excising content at random (for months). There are secondary edit warring, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL issues here but the sockpuppetry and vandalism are the central problem. Baramop (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a retribution ANI in response to a sockpuppet investigation recently filed against Baramop here and is the latest ANI filing against me in the last several months by the voluminous accounts associated with the Gaffney Sock Circus, whose ire I attracted, apparently, with this RfC. While I'd love to address the specific charges leveled here they, as usual, contain no diffs that would allow me to do so. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. LavaBaron (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I started looking into this, but I have to leave. Baseless accusations against LavaBaron. I suggest an admin review Baramop's edit history, the overlap with Zeke1999 (see link to the SPI above) and timing of their edits relative to Zeke's block. I imagine a block of the OP and reblock of Zeke will be warranted, but confidence is not high enough to do so without further review, and I'm out of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron's comment is an obvious falsehood. He requested (on the article talkpage) that I post here. None of his edits can be construed as constructive or legitimate. A 48-hour block would give him time to cool his heels. Baramop (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The scary thing is I'll probably get it, too. LavaBaron (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that Baramop's edits have generally been an attempt to whitewash the articles. I have seen nothing untoward in LavaBaron's edits. If there are sanctions due here, they're BOOMERANGS. BMK (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You've been goal-tending LAVABARON's edits of these pages for months. You're not an objective party. Zeke1999 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back up your claim, Baramop? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. He removed legitimate, sourced criticism here [178] because it was sourced. If you look at Talk:Frank Gaffney you will find LavaBaron has been re-adding his personal conspiracy theory that Gaffney is Jewish for at least eight years. He previously used the sockpuppet Alice.S or Alice (it's no longer clear which one though maybe both) which CheckUser confirmed are sockpuppets of the banned user W. Frank. LavaBaron is just another sockpuppet of a banned user. Every single edit the account has made to these two pages has been to remove large amounts of content with no explanation, replacing the page with POV-pushing conspiracy theories of 'nefarious Jewishness'. Baramop (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a diff where I said "Jewish nefariousness"? What does this article even have to do with Judaism? This is the first time it's even been brought up. Can we please get an admin in here? There is no reason I should be subjected to this shit. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LAVABARON, I had not noticed the "Jewish nefariousness" issue. I plan to look into this. I have noticed that your Wikipedia account is suspicious. You're obviously a very experienced editor yet your first recorded edit was in January 2015. Who's really running socks here? Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've informed Baramop that he either needs to provide evidence of this alleged anti-Semitism, or he will be blocked indefinitely. @Zeke1999:, if you make such an accusation with this account without proof, it will be blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Floquenbeam. I looked over some of LAVABARON's edits from last summer and did not find evidence of anti-Semitism. He did add language in July that CSP was "a pro-Israel activist group." diff This was biased language but did not amount to anti-Semitism. My willingness to entertain Baramop's claim was due to this sentence. After I objected to this in September, LAVABARON dropped this language. Zeke1999 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One more comment on this. LAVABARON, who is posting comments about this ANI complaint on several talk pages and seems to be lobbying for an admin to block me again, posted this comment on jamesbwatson 's talk page:

"Normally I'd let an ANI against me run its course. but Zeke and his new sock have now gotten particularly vile, accusing me of a variety of anti-Semitic slurs (no diffs, off). I'm confident I'm one post away from being called a pedophile and I'd rather not be. Can you please make a quick ruling and either block me or close the thread?.LavaBaron (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"

You can see above this claim is untrue. This kind of comment is beyond the pale. I'll leave it to the admins to decide how to address this. Zeke1999 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As you were told by myself and user:Cwobeel, you were reverted because your edits undid wording that had literally just been decided in a RFC consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dxrd - aka LavaBaron aka banned user W. Frank - adds in the lie, again, that Gaffney is Jewish.[179] Under the LB account over the last several months he has massively removed actual, cited content (including actual criticism of the organization)[180][181][182][183], deleting the fact that he was Assistant Secretary of Defense and replacing the introduction with 'he is a conspiracy theorist who won an award from a Zionist organization'. Also note that the FG article no longer has him listed under Cat:Scottish Americans[184]. None of his edits to either the CSP or Frank Gaffney articles can be construed as legitimate. In the words of another user who was not involved in editing these pages: "Baramop's version is superior in completeness, BLP, NPOV, and due weight. Revert warring against it will need something much better than alluding to an alleged prior consensus"[185]. There is no content dispute here. Baramop (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked Baramop indefinitely; this is not evidence LB has posted anything of the sort. I'm strongly inclined to block Zeke1999 for sockpuppetry, but will wait to see what a Checkuser decides at the SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I cant believe I'm on the verge of being blocked again on false sockpuppet charges by LAVABARON. Please don't do this. Zeke1999 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you persist in writing "LAVABARON" when the editor's name is "LavaBaron"? BMK (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to sanction LAVABARON for bullying other editors in the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy Pages

There is no Gaffney sock circus. There is an editor, LAVABARON, who has been making false charges like this to bully other editors to prevent any changes to his NPOV language on the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy (CSP) pages.

LAVABARON made major changes to these pages over the summer. I tried to add balance to his edits in September. My changes, which were explained on the talk pages, left the negative material and added text on other issues that I thought were significant such as the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal and a rally against this deal it sponsored in front of the Capitol that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz spoke to. See these diffs diff1 diff2 I think the Center's work on the Iran nuclear deal is significant but it seems LAVABARON wont allow any material to be added to the Center or Gaffney pages that distracts from the single emphasis he is pushing that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist.

I also disagree that a consensus was reached on the Gaffney page since LAVABARON engineered a biased RfC.

99.170.117.163 and I reverted LAVABARON's mass reverts of my edits in September. LAVABARON reverted our changes and began to make a series of false charges, including that this IP editor and I were sock or meat puppets. We were both blocked due to these charges by LAVABARON and his associates.

The unfair block against me was lifted a few weeks ago. The editor who lifted it recommended I stay away from the Gaffney and Center for Security Policy pages. I did not agree to this but have stayed away anyway until writing this complaint. I was stunned today that LAVABARON has filed another false sock puppet charge against me even though I have not made any edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages since October 3. See this link

Let me repeat this: I have not made ANY edits to the Gaffney or CSP pages or their talk pages since October 3, 2015 but was just hit with another false sockpuppet charge concerning these pages by LAVABARON.

Among the false complaints lodged by LAVABARON in this case was this one to the Fringe Theories noticeboard DIFF3 (See discussion #90) The admins on this page, location jps and ad_orientem mostly rejected LAVABARON's complain but raised a lot of questions about his behavior. I think this page gives a fairly objective account of this dispute.

I lodged a complaint against LAVABARON to the ANI notice board in Sepember. See this diff (number 72) BeyondMyKen, who has been defending LAVABARON's edits, closed my complaint with a non-admin closure.

LAVABARON appears to be an editor who is personally invested in the Gaffney and CSP pages. Based on his behavior and some of his comments, I suspect he is a professional or personal rival. If LAVABARON's behavior to block editors who disagree with him on the Gaffney and CSP pages is not a clear example of unethical bullying, I don't know what is. Zeke1999 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ho boy. I think there are issues here that were well-beyond my ability to help. To be clear, I am not an admin, and while I clashed a bit with LavaBaron (over style rather than substance), I think that we should acknowledge that there are potential conspiracy theories being inappropriately advocated here (which is one of the main concerns of LavaBaron). There are also WP:BLP issues we need to balance, and political articles like this are always a mess. Additionally, when things get heated it sometimes becomes hard to see the forest for the trees, and good editors can sometimes fall into traps that are hard to get out of, which is what I suspect may be going on here at least in part. There could also be some WP:CPUSHing happening, but I haven't looked into it that closely. This conflict, sadly, looks like one of the ones that tends to end up at arbcom sooner or later. jps (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. LavaBaron (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Time to end your bullying. Zeke1999 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, POV-pushing editors frequently see any action taken to mitigate their attempts at skewing our articles as "bullying". BMK (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User and possible IP sockpuppet insisting on placement of image with copyright issues

In Matt Bevin, User:Sohsowski2015 and a possible sock at 72.201.235.143 are evading copyright requirements with placement of the image File:GovBevin2015.jpg (missing evidence of permission). I won't prescribe what should be done, but I want to make sure admins know about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sohsowski2015 has also just restored the image to Governor of Kentucky. Note that this user's edits seem to be centered around this subject, but the bottom line is that we currently don't know we're allowed to use this pic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that we are allowed to use it, but we don't know that we're not. Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments doesn't include Kentucky in its list of states which default to public domain for government works, and it's not clear that the photo is an official government portrait, or a work by a private individual who has authorized the Commonwealth of Kentucky to use the photo. The webpage on which it appears does say © 2015 Commonwealth of Kentucky. All rights reserved., so I'd guess that it's not public domain. The permission tag is bad - it says it has been released by "The People of the Commonwealth of Kentucky", which is not the usage that the state government uses on its website. However, the photo is tagged for deletion if proper evidence of permission is not produced; you should leave it at that. You shouldn't edit war over it - either the uploader supplies evidence of permission, or the photo goes away automatically. Argyriou (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right about not edit-warring over it, which is why I haven't edit-warred about it (I stopped after 2 reverts), and brought it here. I just thought there might be some consternation about a user insisting that such an image stay on display before they have acted to supply evidence of permission. At any rate, thank you for covering the legal questions involved. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert the AfD process

Legacypac (talk · contribs) has been, in my opinion, gaming the system by subverting the AfD process by adding redirects to articles after his AfD's were unsuccessful.

I tried to discuss this on his talk page, but I did not feel his responses were adequate. I also asked if--in good faith--he would revert all the redirects he had added, and he will not.

It started when Legacypac attempted to bulk-delete the articles of a number of beauty pageant contestants here. The result, closed by User:DGG, was "keep all for the time being; renominate separately".

Following that, Legacypac followed a similar pattern to have several of the articles removed.

For example, he nominated Ashleigh Lollie for deletion here. The result was "no consensus". So, he instead redirected the article here.

He nominated Claira Hollingsworth for speedy deletion here. It was declined, so he instead added a redirect here.

At Courtney Byrd, Legacypac added a speedy delete here, and it was declined. He then nominated this article for deletion here, but then, according to his edit summary, "no nomination page created for more than two hours", so he removed his AfD, and instead added a redirect here.

This pattern continued for most of the other articles which were included in original bulk-delete AfD. Again, I have tried to discuss what appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the AfD process, but Legacypac felt his actions were in compliance with policy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no insight into the issue raised by Magnolia677 specifically, however, in a related matter - after Legacypac nominated Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition for deletion, and the AfD failed, he immediately executed a BOLD merge of the entire article to a different article, sans discussion [186]. As the topic was under Discretionary Sanctions few people wanted to unmerge it, appeals to Legacypac to unmerge it himself were rebuffed [187], an attempt to unmerge it by Mhhossein was immediately reverted by Legacypac [188], and an admin ultimately had to be brought in to execute the unmerge [189]. As the article was in the DYK queue at the time, this created a tremendous amount of hassle. LavaBaron (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong argument that these college co-eds fail WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:15MOF and there is lots of precedent for deletion. There is a strong argument that the User:DGG close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie covering 42 titles was against consensus. I count 16 editors seeking Delete or Redirect for all (or nearly all) the articles on the list vs 2 or maybe 3 who wanted to keep (generally without a policy based reason). Subsequently some of the 42 were sent individually to AfD as test cases. So far 6 were completely deleted Natasha_Martinez, Lizzy_Olsen, Brooke_Fletcher, Brittany_McGowan Elizabeth_Cardillo, Haley_Denise_Laundrie. Others like Ylianna Guerra have be turned into redirects to the appropriate contest page. We still have quite a few like Taylor Even which reads in its entirety "Taylor Even was crowned Miss Iowa USA 2015. She represented Iowa at Miss USA 2015 but Unplaced." that have not been sent to AfD or redirected. Obviously stuff like this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE addresses.

To bad the editor who started this thread as not addressed the issue of WP:NOPAGE, raised in the redirections and on my talk page, but I suppose they have no answer. Instead that editor reversed my redirects without a policy based rational, so I've sent the articles to AfD where I expect they will be deleted like their sister articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As for LavaBaron's completely off topic complaint about something that happened months ago, Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition is an awful misleading POV title covering a hard to understand segment of a larger topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for the reminder to work on cleaning up that mess. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) I closed the first AfD because the nomination was against the meaning of WP:Deletion policy. Had I not done so, any close at all would probably have been overturned at Deletion Review, with the instruction to list separately. I advised renominating individually a few at a time; Instead, the individual nominations were nonetheless placed all together in one batch at a single time. I commented at that time "renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources."

(2)I commented at the separate nominations that "personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career" . I personally do not like these articles., which I thing generally contrary to the spirit of an encycopedia. I think we should have a guideline not to have them. But we don't, and the way to decide is therefore to decide individual cases by AfD. As LegacyPak correctly notes, there were various results from these discussions.

(3)A non-consensus close could reasonably be followed by a discussion about redirection or merging. Doing it without consensus is trying to substitute a different close. We can have a different close--but it requires some sort of discussion, either DRV or another AfD or a discussion on merging or redirecting. Doing so without discussion in a case like this seems to be effectually replacing the community opinion by one's own. (that I happen to share that opinion is irrelevant here.). I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be to revert,the redirection, and then discuss it. This does not require coming here, or any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

TThanks DGG. It turns out we do have a policy WP:NOPAGE that was never considered before and avoids the question of notability. It's being used successfully to redirect super old people articles now. If someone disagrees with redirect they (as the OP has done) revert and discuss how NOPAGE does not apply. Coming here is not the answer. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who originally introduced the NOPAGE concept to the cleanup of the longevity walled garden, let me say this. I considered that, in principle, merges based on NOPAGE can be done boldly. But where there's a reasonable chance of controversy, such a merge should only follow a talk-page discussion. (And in the case of longevity, I felt, with the concurrence of others, that the additional transparency of AfD would be even better -- healthier for the community -- given the high emotions associated for so long with that topic.) Either way, a bold merge soon after an AfD that ended Keep is like a "bold" merge soon after a merge discussion that ended No merge -- it's not bold, it contrary to recent consensus. A new discussion -- wherever -- is needed. EEng (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You expressed your opinion that it was an "awful POV misleading title" in the AfD you made and the community decided that was not the case. Your singular opinion does not override the community consensus, particularly for an article under Discretionary Sanctions. And immediately slapping a third and fourth Merge proposal on that article in response to this observation in ANI, as you have just done, along with the intervention "thanks for the reminder," comes across as a little bit of a middle-finger in response to this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If an AfD is closed as keep (or even no consensus), it must not be redirected or merged. Either of those actions would be in violation of the close. If those actions have been done, the actions should be immediately reverted now. And Legacypac needs to agree he understands he cannot do that in the future. The only cause post-AfD to redirect an article is if the close was redirect. The only cause post-AfD to merge an article is if the close was merge. Alternatively, after a failed AfD the article in question can undergo the specific detailed process (all of the very precise steps) of WP:MERGEPROP. If Legacypac does not understand and agree to these policies, he needs to undergo a topic ban on creating AfDs (and possibly also on redirecting or merging). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't think that that's entirely true. Just because there is a decision to keep the content of an article doesn't mean that the content has to be kept in that article. Also, if something is closed as no consensus, that usually doesn't preclude further discussion about the article's merits. pbp 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. And if a discussion took place after the No Consensus result at AFD, and the consensus there was to redirect or merge? No one would blink. The concern here, I think, is that Legacypac didn't start such a discussion, but relied on BOLD in a situation where it was inappropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, to repeat, for an article to be merged after a keep or no consensus AfD close, one would have to follow all of the very precise steps at WP:MERGEPROP. There couldn't be merely a very informal quick ad-hoc discussion and agreement to merge; any such informally discussed (or undiscussed) merge would have to be immediately reverted as violating the AfD close. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I just want to say Legacypac is a valuable contributor at AfD and has done a tremendous job cleaning up the Neverending Neelix Nightmare® – He's probably spent 100 hours on this in the last month going through all the ridiculous redirects and walled garden articles. I cannot rain enough barnstars on his wall. I hope this is taken into account and a topic ban is not pursued. I'm sure he just needs more clarity on what to do with no-consensus outcomes since there seems to be some gray area per DGG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting a title citing NOPAGE that has never been to AfD is fine (I've done that a few times). Since this complaint started on my talk page I've been sending similar articles to AfD instead and I fully expect an ANi thread complaining that I'm clogging up AfDs with articles that should have been BOLDly redirected citing NOPAGE. Now, if anyone has an issue with a SPECIFIC page I've redirected, please reverse the redirect so I can AfD it next. That already happened on the two listed above that were part of a group AfD. The third article mentioned was just a technical decline Prod, which should not shelter the article from being turned into a redirect months later. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with material where there is a possibly unreasonable concentration of interest is difficult--WP is very susceptible to people doing this, and I doubt we will ever find a good balance between disposing of problems quickly & definitively and doing so with full fair consideration of each possibility/ When I deal with such analogous groups of material, I usually do not get everything right--it can be very hard to predict what consensus is going to be. Legacypac is doing at least as well as I do in similar situations. All that can be asked of someone is that they reconsider what they are doing if it is questioned, and I try to be objective enough to do so, and I think he is also. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'm not weighing in on the substance of this thread at this time. However, flagging for future reference that the term "co-eds" referring to female college students is outmoded and may be perceived as demeaning and therefore should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick look at all of these articles is concerning to me. There is excessive personal detail including educational information, dates of birth, parents names etc. These are not well known people, and even if the information can be found, we shouldn't be further disseminating it as per WP:NPF. Without a lot of this filler information the articles would be very bare indeed (which to me indicates the lack of notability). All of these articles need reviewing, both for notability and content. Polequant (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Subverting AfD by using AfD

• I heartily endorse a topic ban for Legacypac (talk · contribs) on all beauty pageant-related material, he clearly either does not understand the subject matter, or has an open hostility and bias on this issue; either way he is not able to contribute effectively in this area, and is creating a lot of unnecessary work for others. Please see here for more on this, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Anderson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Cook (Miss Oregon), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline McGowan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichole Mead. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL I added an appropriate subsection heading for Ejgreen77 who has NEVER voted against deleting or redirecting a pageant winner page, including voting keep on many pages that were deleted, which strongly suggests bias. I, on the other hand can tell the difference between a BIO about someone that has done something other then win one contest and a bio about a school teacher, future stay at home mom, or univ. student that got in a looks contest to win some scholarships. See Caroline McGowan for example where they just voted to keep an article that links http://dorkychickinlipstick.com/ and calls the subject an actress that has no acting credits to speak of. And to keep Allison Cook (Miss Oregon) "Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education."Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education.[2] She sought alternatives after concussion injuries forced her to leave the Oregon Tech basketball and volleyball teams. On April 28, 2012, Cook won the Miss City of Sunshine 2012 title and more than $6,500 in scholarship prizes" and she studies radiology. And to keep Ali Wallace which is a formula cut and paste of the others replacing name, school, major, parent, hair and eye color. Pretty girl who enjoyed 15 minutes of fame and went back to obscurity. Heck recently people were seriously trying to delete a bio I started Candy Carson and she has actually done some notable things and was portrayed next to Cuba Gooding, Jr. in a movie, plus married to Ben Carson. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness there are a few editors who mass nominate beauty pageant/pageant winners for deletion. It's not just Legacypac. There needs to be a notability guideline established by experts in this area. Personally I feel anyone who wins the mainstream national title of any country, whether it's Miss USA, Miss Canada or Miss Armenia, should be notable. State winners aka Miss Oregon are not so clear and we need some kind of guideline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, check out this link that Legacypac included in his AfD nomination. Let me put it this way, If I were to include such a link in an AfD nomination, I would fully expect to get a topic ban, if not an out-and-out block. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: The problem is that it's very difficult to establish any kind of notability guideline, simply because third-party media coverage of pageants varies wildly from country-to-country (with the US having, by far, the most). Miss South Carolina undoubtedly gets 100 times as much media coverage as Miss Swaziland does, yet there will be some that will say keep one and not the other, because one is a national pageant and one is a sub-national pageant. Other people will argue the other way, saying that one meets WP:GNG and the other doesn't. In general, I think that GNG probably needs to be the objective standard that everything on Wikipedia is held up to. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with that link. John Oliver has a hugely popular show and there's nothing inappropriate in the video - there is valid criticism of pageants and their objectification of women's appearances. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

But, it's the kind of editorial content that is totally inappropriate and off-topic in an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't use AfD - get dragged to ANi. Use AfD get dragged to ANi. Can't beat the fans of a dying, widely criticized industry.

My criteria is if they win beyond winning a state title or go on to any sort of notable career the article can stay. If the only info beyond trival stuff is that they won a contest, redirect to the contest page. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Heaven forbid, somebody who actually wants to get rid of poorly-sourced, non-notable articles. pbp 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • But he's nominating articles like Nichole Mead and Rebecca Anderson with dozens of reliable sources, ones that clearly cross the verifiability and notability thresholds, and ignoring WP:NTEMP in his rationales. - Dravecky (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• A topic ban on "beauty pageant-related material" would completely miss the point: the problem is not specifically to do with "beauty pageant-related material": it is to do with trying to undermine the outcomes of discussions and consultations whenever those outcomes are contrary to what Legacypac would like. Legacypac needs to realise that if he or she starts a deletion discussion, he or she must then accept the outcome of that discussion: it is not OK to say, in effect, "Let's have a discussion on whether this should be deleted, so that if the answer is 'yes' then I will accept that decision, and it will be deleted, while if the answer is 'no' then I can ignore that decision, and find another way of effectively deleting it."
• Legacypac, if you continue to do what you have been doing, you are likely to be blocked. I also suggest you may find it helpful to read WP:FORUMSHOP, which is not exactly about what you have been doing, but it is essentially the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - ridiculous. AfD is a group process and it can be worked out. Further clarification is needed in some gray areas. Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed. IMO AfD is probably the least rewarding yet one of the most vital areas on Wikipedia, and the editors who nevertheless spend time there trying to weed out non-notable articles need support, not constant criticism. A topic ban for Legacypac would harm the project - and I say that as someone who recommended keep on the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: "Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed." I'm curious what exactly you see that lead you to state this. Personally, I see nothing to suggest this (in fact, very much the opposite). FYI, this is not Legacypac's first go-round at this, there was a similar mass-AfD dust-up in February 2015, so Legacypac knows perfectly well that at least 50% of these AfD's he's opened are going to close as "keep." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And, as far as his motivations go, please see his comment immediately above about a "dying, widely criticized industry." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why there is so little RS coverage today. As a child I remember most Queens getting local and regional press. Now they have do/say something extraordinary [190] to get even a name check. It is usually a big struggle to find sources outside official pageant sites (and that is kept up only for a year), local person wins award, Facebook and blogs. It is different if they get on a big TV show or something, then we treat them like any other actor. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's true in Canada, but in the US, state-level pageants are a big deal, and get plenty of RS coverage in third-party news sources here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then a Google search like this for the state closest to me right now [191] should find more then 253 results (all news results for all time for both the annual event and all girls that ever went to the "Miss Washington USA" pageant, not just winners). It is barely noise level. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these state winners, IMHO, don't meet GNG. I've fought to keep articles on pageants and national pageant winners from around the world (which is why I know Legacypac is not the only who noms them for AfD). But I really don't think most state winners make the cut. Just being Miss New Hampshire is not really enough IMO unless there is significant coverage in some other area. Nominating state winners is good cleanup IMHO. And again, there needs to be a guideline. Pageants are competitions after all and equivalent sport guidelines exist on notability, so why not make one for pageants? —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Please see my comment immediately above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support and Expand On review of the individual cases, and not just the method of editing but the tone used by Legacypac in interacting with other editors who come to him expressing concern or question, there seems to be a dangerous sense of ownership and unwillingness to work in a collaborative spirit. Really, had I chosen to make it an issue at the time, he could have been blocked under discretionary sanctions for the stunt he pulled above vis a vis the Syria article; I only didn't because I try to avoid the mess that is those topics and only came across it via DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

After I proposed AfD [192] (which closed with advise to discuss merge at talk and good support for a merge in the AfD) I propose merge to talk on Oct 28. Only LavaBaron responded Oppose with no clear policy reason. I completed a merge on Nov 1 (based on insufficient opposition at talk and recent support in AfD, but was reverted. Then on Nov 5 another editor proposed Delete at AfD [193] but that closed no consensus with people suggesting merge again. Now I started a more formal merge discussion and you take offense? That is not forum shopping its following process. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban but suggest the editor avoid making personal comments about others - such comments are uniformly disregarded by closers at AfD, and tend to make some feel that the poster is more invested in deleting stuff he/she does not like than in finding out what the consensus of the general community evinced on the AfD page is. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - No topic ban. He does need to watch how he interacts with others and remember to discuss content, not users. If he demonstrates incivility or personal attacks, he can definitely be blocked on those grounds. However, he is following the proper process and using AFD for what it's designed to discuss. The lack of understanding of a subject matter is a learning opportunity, and certainly not a reason in itself to propose a ban. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: But, over the past year he has sent literally dozens of pageant-related bio articles to AfD, and only a small handful of them have either ended up as "delete" or "merge/redirect" closes, with the vast majority of them closing as either "keep" or "no consensus." And yet, he continues to send more. At what point is the process simply being abused? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ejgreen77 - I completely acknowledge your response; I agree that the AFD process can be prone to abuse by anyone who wants to push an agenda or disrupt the process with excessive nominations of articles (especially if the articles clearly do not meet the criterion for nominating it for deletion). I'm trying to find some edits, any edits, that demonstrate that this person has an unambiguous viewpoint or agenda against this topic subject. So far, I'm not finding any. I want to assume good faith here - I think that the user should be warned about his nominations of articles, and that continued nomination of articles that clearly should not be deleted can result in blocking, as doing so is disruptive. After blocks have proven ineffective, I'd be much more open to a conversation about banning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My reason for bringing this to ANI was not because this editor was nominating these articles for deletion. It was because--after being unsuccessful at getting these articles deleted through AfD--he then added a redirect. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Are pageant winners notable?

Thinking of what other annual contests exist, I searched the biggest Rodeo in Canada List_of_Calgary_Stampede_Rodeo_Champions. There is just one article on one winner - a two sentence stub J.B. Mauney. No dozens of articles on each event with succession boxes and who their parents are, what they studied, where they went to school blah blah blah. I can't think of any contests, outside politics) that we give SO much coverage too, and we avoid most of the trivia in the politician articles. The trivia goes into the pageant articles because, without it, you have nothing that does not fit on a list. If we applied the same standards to pageant winners as we apply to other topic areas, this debate would not even be happening. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1.) WP:OTHERSTUFF 2.) Lack of editor interest in one particular area should not preclude other editors from developing articles in a completely unrelated field. 3.) At the end of the day, it's all about WP:GNG; if you think that individual rodeo cowboys have sufficient third-party coverage to warrant articles, by all means, go ahead and create them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Largely not, no. In most cases there is no coverage of them outside the context of the pageant. Pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• All pageant winners? No, of course not, but the state-level winners for the two major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA)? Based on the extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources, clearly yes. (Other contests that receive as much or more attention on Wikipedia include reality television competitions, sports at all levels, literary prizes, academic prizes, literary prizes, the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, and so on.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Like the 111 Google News hits for "Miss Oregon USA" or the 58 hits in books (covering all winners over the years and the contest itself and not all RS of course)? Is that "extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources"? All that coverage barely justifies the Miss Oregon USA article. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to try to trivialize this too much, but from what I've seen of pageant winners, WP:BLP1E readily applies, in that the only event they are connected to is winning the pageant, meaning that most winners are not notable (although we can certainly use lists and tables to document then) Obviously, if they have done more before and/or after that is of note, then normal notability rules apply (as such with Caitlin Upton. And this is not to suggest that anyone winning an aware is not notable per BLP1E, but it is due to the nature of what pageants are: the participants are not being ranked on past merit but the there-and-now, as opposed to other awards like Nobels, Oscars, etc. where it is based on past merit that usually can be documented to a great degree, so BLP1E would not apply. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. the majority of them have no actual claim to notability and are never heard of again. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

New user creating tons of unnecessary redirects

It's More Fun to Compute (talk · contribs).

This user created his account yesterday, but has already made over 100 new redirects, most of which is completely unnecessary. I do not know what to do, so I am bringing it here before it gets out of hand.

To Michael Jordan, he created the following redirects:

This goes on with other articles, too. Nymf (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Neelix sock? Just get this account to give up his Adminship cause we already established creating useless redirects is not a reason for a BLOCK. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who that person is. However, I must ask why there is a template for redirect from misspelling template if there is no intention to use it where appropriate? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warn user to stop and then Block (indefinitely) and WP:DENY if they don't. This is just the latest form of trolling. Nip it in the bud. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the Camelcase isn't necessary, but could you please explain what is wrong with Micheal Jeffrey Jordan? - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately you've come along at a pretty bad time in relation to odd redirects - misspellings can be handled by the Mediawiki software, as when you search for a misspelt article, it will suggest the correct one. Adding redirects for every possible misspelling, while cheap, is a bit disruptive and ultimately pointless. I'd recommend stopping, and focus a bit more on content :) -- samtar ^whisper 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam, even extreme cases [194], is not blockable we learned. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, this is not an appropriate place to bring up how Neelix was dealt with. You know very well that who is and is not blockable depends on circumstance. You coming here citing precedence like we are a court of law will only confuse the new user. If you want to discuss this my talk page is open. Fun to computer please ignore the above comment, it is wholly unrelated to the topic at hand. HighInBC 15:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We all know new users don't start by rapid creating dozens of stupid redirects, so confusion by "new user" Fun to computer is unlikely. Inconsistently however is confusing to lots of editors :) Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean that I cannot create any new redirects? I'm don't want to be blocked. - It's More Fun to Compute (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you don't, at the current time. As you might gather, there has recently been a bit of tiff (trying for British understatement here) about mass redirects for inane spellings, and tempers are short. The kwetching from certain editors above notwithstanding, you may even get blocked if you overdo it right now. Go improve content rather than duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already! :) -- Elmidae 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• He's a sock of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs), and a case has already been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf. Whenever an admin gets around to it, just block him and G5 his redirects. Not much else needs to be discussed here... -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we are nuking the redirects by "It's More Fun to Compute", can we nuke the ones by the other recently blocked sock A window cleaner me (talk · contribs) at the same time? There's about 150 categories/redirects on that user as well. Nymf (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The new user & the IP 108.71.133.201 are the same individual, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll let the SPI run its course regarding the socking claim (seems likely to me), but I've blocked User:It's More Fun to Compute indefinitely, because while this thread is going on, they are continuing to create stupid redirects. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even forgetting the socking, creating redirects for every possible misspelling one can think of seems like overkill. I've created a few redirects where I can never remember the proper spelling. But this is excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• CU confirmed the named account at SPI; I mass-deleted all his contributions and rolled back a few dozen of his other edits before I ran out of time to do WP stuff today. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of all this, is there a policy page or guideline we can point people to to remind them that it's more than unnecessary to go around creating redirects just to (as Elmidae nicely put it) "duplicate a job the software does perfectly well already"? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE lists all the reasons to create redirects, so that might be what you're looking for... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see no harm in the preponderance of those redirects being created, and would not have deleted them. pbp 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer barracking at a RFC

Following discussion with an Admin relating to the notability policy of a AfD, it was agreed that I should open a RFC to gain consensus. After some thought I decided to open a discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations which seemed the most relevant venue for discussion. As directed at WP:RFC I attempted to formulate a question about the issue which was neutral and invited discussion from editors with different views. User:Neutralhomer has been increasingly abusive in this discussion to me, including insisting that I have to reply to him rather than go to bed (which is nonsense, there is no time limit on a discussion), [that I am acting in bad faith], am timewasting, [be disregarded as I have only been editing for less than a year] and writing [messages on my talkpage] about "stirring hornets nests".

The fact is that I am interested in a discussion about the notability issue of community radio stations. That is not, in my opinion, a time wasting activity - because this issue matters to me. I understand that User:Neutralhomer feels strongly that WP:NMEDIA applies only to radio stations in the USA, but as shown by extensive comments by other editors, I am not alone in thinking that a broadcast license by a national regulator should be a sign of notability. I should certainly not be castigated for attempting to follow WP:RFC and I should not have to put up with this kind of bullying. JMWt (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I and others have tried to get JMWt to understand that "community radio stations" do not exist in the US, they are only in Canada, the UK and Australia. So, NMEDIA rules don't cover them. When NMEDIA was created and later updated, it was created to be vague enough to be used all over, but primarily in the US and Canada. Reason being, the people who work on radio station pages are typically from the US and Canada. We didn't have any knowledge of British communications rules when NMEDIA was written.

I suggested to JMWt that he create UK-based rules (under NMEDIAUK) so that there isn't any overlap. But JMWt couldn't accept that. He also couldn't accept that US, Canadian and UK radio stations are completely different.

This has gone on and on for hours and the RfC isn't going anywhere. I requested it be closed and the discussion moved to JMWt's talk page. That seemed to irritate JMWt even more than he already was.

There is a clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT going on with JMWt. No matter how I explain the rules, no matter how anyone else explains them, he just doesn't get it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am entitled to open a discussion about the notability of community radio stations worldwide even if (you think) I am wrong about WP:NMEDIA. WP:NOTGETTINGIT does not imply that I have to agree with your conclusions and that a RFC is concluded within 24 hours when you say it is. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) It really does look as though people are trying to explain a very simple concept to JMWt, but JMWt is just not comprehending. People, Neutralhomer in particular, are so sick having to explain the same thing over and over and over and over and over that he's become frustrated. This is now being held against him. As someone who has previously had this happen to him, I sympathise more with Neutralhomer than with Mr Fingers-in-ears-LALALALALALA. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that I'm talking about the bullying not the disagreement about WP:NMEDIA. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If saying "you swatted the hornet's nest, you don't get to run off to bed" or "you've been here less than a year and it is showing bad" is bullying, then I apologize. That doesn't change the fact that you still don't understand that NMEDIA doesn't cover "Community Radio Stations" because NMEDIA was written, however vaugely, for US and Canadian radio stations. Again, because we didn't have knowledge of UK rules and regs.

I, again, invite you to work with the community and create rules for UK stations as NMEDIAUK, ones that will cover the "Community Radio Stations" found in the UK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sorry you feel you were bullied" apology not accepted. I've been very clear from the start that I'm talking about how to assess the notability of all small community radio stations on wikipedia. Once again, I deplore your attitude when I am clearly trying to clear up a source of disagreement over notability. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What you still aren't getting is while you are trying to "assess the notability" of community radio stations, you are doing so with rules that don't cover them. You are trying to lump all radio stations into those notability "assessment". I deplore having to repeat myself and I have done so now several times. Several times you just haven't gotten it. I'm hoping you do soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree. That is not for this discussion, but your attitude. Which has still not changed markedly. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, my attitude has nothing to do with your understanding of the matter. Numerous people have written large swaths of information and you either barely acknowledge it or completely ignore it and keep right on going. It's kinda hard to have a discussion of any kind when the other person isn't getting it. Reyk, help me out here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer Communiuty radio actually does exist in the United States , please | see this organization . KoshVorlon 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: These are almost solely Public Radio formatted stations. Some, like WDVX and WMMT, are Americana and Roots music. But others like WEAA and WTJU are public radio stations airing varying degrees of NPR-type programming.

What I was meaning is the FCC does not have a category for "Community Radio Stations" like OFCOM in the UK does. The closest thing we have is low-power FM (or LPFM). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: Local Community Radio Act. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That brought about changes in LPFMs, but did not create them. LPFMs in the US have been around since 2001. LPFM was started with the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know. The point is that community radio is clearly a thing in the US and acknowledged as such on the legislative level. That the official category of license does not have the word "community" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But this seems like a tangent and gets at the actual substance of the dispute, which does not require ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, if there was a "community radio" category in the US, I think it would be alot easier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMWt: frankly your attitude sucks, and you should read WP:BOOMERANG. Now climb down off your high horse and listen to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you with, I must say, commendable patience. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Your attitude sucks" and "climb off your high horse" is how we help people resolve behavioural disputes now, is it? It seems to me people should let the RFC proceed and stop patronising JMWt. Fences&Windows 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias from rape supporters

(non-admin closure) 166 troll. BMK (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the edits at David Lisak and Mary P. Koss and at RSN. Anti-rape activists are being run off this site in favor of the typical men's rights/rape deniers. This is not how neutrality works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.177 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC) The way to call out a controversy is not use personal attacks. Suggesting this be closed. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Some diffs would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see that Ricky81682 made an edit to Mary P. Koss, hence our resident Ricky stalker on the 166.17x.x.x addresses has surfaced. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

False closure of ongoing debate about notability of certain cricketers

User:Davey2010 made several false closures of AfDs about marginally notable cricketers on the grounds of SNOW KEEP. There is a serious debate going on about such articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davey2010 Their non-admin closure is completely unwarranted. SageGreenRider ^talk 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit talk about bad faith!, Consensus was to Keep and as I said if you disagree with it you go to DRV, BTW as an aside you're meant to discuss it with me before hauling my ass here!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• For those who can't be bothered to go thru my contribs here are the AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer)), I'm no genius but I'd say the outcomes to these are blindingly obvious, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the phrase "hoist with one's own petard"? SageGreenRider ^talk 00:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No and it has no relation to this as I've not screwed up .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that your foul language is the result of present intoxication? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest retracting that comment as it could very easily be considered to be well over the boundary of a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• All of these look to me to be clear keeps, and WP:SNOW did in fact apply - coming across them I would have closed them exactly the same way. There was no "serious debate" ongoing in these AfDs. In one there was some discussion, but nothing to stop the closure as was done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• They are part of this debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6 as Davey well knows

• Further point would be, if "serious debate" is going on, then what is there worth of an ANI to report? Davey2010 closed them as clear SNOW KEEPs, which anyone read the !votes would conclude. I think the only reason you believe the closures to be "false" is that you don't like the fact that articles you proposed for deletion have been kept. If this isn't closed forthwith as frivolous, we might begin to wander into boomerang territory. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Have you looked at the articles? The !votes come from the cricket cabal that has a tendency to believe that anyone who puts willow to leather is notable. SageGreenRider ^talk 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)