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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [6], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.

All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([7]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [8] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [9] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [10] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [11] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [12] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ Rob^Talk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:

1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here

2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [13] [14]

4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here

5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.

We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [15]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [18], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [19] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [20] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [21]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

• User:Volunteer Marek : ... and who uses misleading edit summaries" — Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [22], [23], [24] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [25] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [26] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [27] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [28] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [29], [30], [31]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at the policy page WP:CIVIL, Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have not yet started being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.

— User:Alex Bakharev — diff, User:Dstary — diff, User:Anonimski — diff, User:MyMoloboaccount — diff, User:Seryo93 — diff, User:LeoKiev01 — diff, User:Kudzu1 — diff, User:Buzz105 — diff, User:Tobby72 — diff, User:Haberstr — diff. As far as Bloomberg News goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article Human rights in Russia. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to bite the newbies, Marek. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for WP:BLOCK EVASION, I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page here. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating WP:BLOCK EVASION, but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed WP:PPOV. So, when are you going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the WP:LASTWORD and WP:WIN the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running WP:GAMEing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Because you are acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much every single description is accurate. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of WP:GAMEing behavior is warranted too)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.

2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad motive) is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.

3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.

4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the motives of others.

5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Thanks to Drmies for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know why Kalidasa 777 felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts  :) whatever. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. RGloucester? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [43], while being perfectly aware that they are already included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. That is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're getting the point, Kalidasa 777: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr here is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [44] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, My very best wishes? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. Can we get back on topic now? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the REAL problem

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

• Volunteer Marek, you've accused me, by name, of "a history of disruptive editing". You have diffs to demonstrate where and how I went wrong? Please present them here, with comments, so I can learn from my mistakes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We want to include the GfK poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.Haberstr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info was included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The GfK survey was removed — diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about how the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [45], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — of course people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this being used as a surrogate for the article's talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Quite a lot has been said here, but by a limited number of people. Almost all of them directly involved with the Crimea Annexation page. Input from uninvolved Wikipedians might help to resolve this rather complex and conflicted situation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Which particular issue is it that you're asking other editors and admins to 'resolve'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the basic issue here is whether all Wikipedia users have the right to be treated civilly, especially on article talk pages? Or whether (as some seem to think) that right disappears if they've been involved in a content dispute with Iryna Harpy, Volunteer Marek, and RGloucester? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a really ... inaccurate way of portraying the issue, especially given the well documented disruptive editing by Tobby72 and other users above. However, seeing as how nobody uninvolved has bothered to get in on this, it's probably a good idea for you to drop this, rather than keep on beating this dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee campaigning

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

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

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

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

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

Respectfully request:

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

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

The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both Ricky81682 and myself over the past six months or so. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no requirement that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

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

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

• Support - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Traveling: I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. Springee (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here at ANI at for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am, I think rightly, proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage (70%), but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.

EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.

Springee has reported HughD 7 times:

1. AE 27 December 2015
2. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
3. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
4. 3RN 22 August 2015
5. 3RN 26 October 2015
6. 3RN 7 March 2016
7. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban

Springee proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN . I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.

  As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. My enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded re HD. I oppose any action on S but would ask him to back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, Ford Pinto and Chrysler. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being topic banned from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he bizarrely plagiarized my statement of editorial interests from my user page. I don't think Hugh is interested in US Weekly or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that at 3RR and at AE months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD specifically asked him not to post there (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a long time now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:

• 19 October 2015 First notice HughD WP:NOBAN request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at User talk:Springee
• 19 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 22 October 2015, 25 October 2015, 26 October 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 26 October 2015 Second notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Third notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 23 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 27 January 2016, 2 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 2 March 2016 Fourth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Fifth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 March 2016, 18 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 18 March 2016 Sixth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD

Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[54]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[55], added back[56]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[57] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [58]. My reply is here[59]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[60] and one in frustration (but not attack)[61]. These are not attempts to provoke.

HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [62]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[63] [64]. My efforts were appriciated[65].

I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like Arthur Rubin I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. Springee (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

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

and

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

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):

• 14 September 2015 Springee reported at WP:ANI for for Hounding and Tendentious editing, report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Beacon Center of Tennessee was to undo HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
• 18 October 2015 Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
• 12 November 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 21 December 2015 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil was to revert HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 22 January 2016 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy was an undo of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
• 4 March 2016 Springee's 1st edit at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. was to revert HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)

Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee wrote on 28 March 2016: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, Springee's interpretation is the same as mine. As I was still assuming good faith on your part, I would have said that his block was the result of making an unbelievable assertion in regard his own actions, without saying it was dishonest. With your followups, it was either dishonest or indication of such inability to understand facts as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee followed HughD to a GA review. The above list highlights article space following behavior after Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including Scoobydunk at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing and Fyddlestix at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD, have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.

But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the Good Article Review of Bernard Stone, a recently passed Chicago alderman, olav ha-sholom, of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional evidence of Springee following HughD In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):

• 18 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was to revert HughD after 2 hours
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was to undo HughD after 1 day
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to The Heartland Institute was to revert HughD after 1 day
• 26 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to FreedomWorks was to revert HughD after 3 days
• 27 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Chicago-style politics was to revert HughD after 20 hours

The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [66] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.

General replies to HughD's accusations

HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors. HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[67] and RSN[68] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic. HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [69]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[70] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[71] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page. Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[72].

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

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

Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

Moved from another ANI thread.

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

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

• Comment The still-active discussion above (titled "Springee Campaigning") also concerns HughD and the pinto dispute. Just sayin' Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - I agree it isn't the main issue, but it's certainly part of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is Ford Pinto still to suffer? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. Springee (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see our project's policy WP:IBAN. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.

I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.

Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [73]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.

List of TEND examples

HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages: One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[74] after seeking and getting group consensus [75]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me. Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [76] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [77]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV. violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[78], [79]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [80] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[81]). Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [82]. Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[83], [84]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [85],[86]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [87]. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[88]. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[89], 2.[90], 3.[91]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[92] I asked a specific question [93]. Other editors noted it was not answered [94],[95]. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [96] , [97]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [98]. One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [99] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [100], HughD badgers EllenCT [101], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[102]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[103]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [104]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[105]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.

I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you have never commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.

You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:

• 28 August 2015 Springee undo of HughD at Chicago-style politics after 16 minutes with edit summary "...not developed with consensus. Please get consensus for this change"
• 8 September 2015 Springee revert of HughD at Halftime in America after 2 minutes with edit summary "Undue tag was removed without discussion or consent."

Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see WP:TEND: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague Scoobydunk brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing. Your least favorite essay is WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".

Then, when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report that at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD WP:NOTHERE.

Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.

Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project

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

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

Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

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

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

• Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.

The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the question Hugh, why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone? Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and let it go, before you exhaust the community's patience. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request close, with community-initiated 1-year, two-way interaction ban, as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy WP:Interaction ban. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. Springee (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee, please support the proposed 2-way interaction ban, without conditions, as requested above by our uninvolved colleagues. It is a reasonable, measured proposal. It is the simplest thing that might work. It is clearly what's best for you, for me, and for our project. It is a established remedy with a record of effectiveness in curbing disruption. You are in little position to dictate sidecar terms given your well-documented year-long history of following and harassment. We know you feel you deserve a topic ban on HughD after your efforts on your above walls of text, and we know you feel anyone about whom such walls of text can be written must be deserving of a topic ban. However, your recalcitrance on this proposal and your insistence on a topic ban are only serving to further demonstrate to our community your ownership issues and your obsession with your project of banning HughD. No one is trying to prevent you from contributing constructively to any articles. On behalf of our community, may I respectfully ask that you please accept the proposed 2-way interaction ban; you will be happier. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think only a modified IBAN would make sense. Modifications:

1. Each is banned from articles where the other is a major contributor. If both are major contributors, they are both banned, but A may appeal if A claims that B is only a major contributor in distorting or deleting A's contributions.
2. Each is permitted to make a brief statement about violations of the other one in appropriate forums. (This may have no effect, as i haven't seen a brief statement by either.) He may not make a followup statement unless asked. (Advice to all; don't ask.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I think that's an excellent recommendation. + 1 on that. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll support with the addition of my previous mentioned March 1 cut off. The cut of means if only one editor was involved with the article prior to March 1 they are allowed to remain involved. I'm 100% OK with HughD and I both agreeing to step away from previous mutual topics. Springee (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Two-way interaction bans, as proposed above by uninvolved colleagues, are simple and well-understood by our community and have an established history of curbing the disruptive following and harassment behavior you have demonstrated over the last year. Your attempt to negotiate terms in contrast is a bizarre custom page ban with an unprecedented boundary definition which in effect codifies your problematic article ownership issues in the form of a community sanction, and is nothing more than an attempt to distract our community from your edit history. "I was there first" does not matter on Wikipedia and our community is not going to start with you. Our community has substantial experience in sorting out interaction ban violation incidents and has absolutely no desire to get involved in helping you enforce your baroque conditions. Please see the above diffs: you have earned an interaction ban many times over, accept it with grace. Hugh (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will remind HughD that he has also "earned an interaction ban many times over." You both have. So stop. Just stop. The ever expanding wall of text here when the community long ago reached consensus on an IBAN only serves to further prove why an IBAN was needed. Wait for this discussion to be closed by an admin, then go your merry ways with your IBAN, and let the rest of us live in peace without having to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same thing over and over again. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a different administrator who can look over the EGS article rather than "Guy"?

I want to report the "Guy" or "JzG" actions concerning the European Graduate School article. He does not like the school, so he is unlikely to make the necessary edit or changes to the article. He blocked me and he has tried to ban me (without any success this time). I do not want to start a war against him because I like to do something else in life. However, I tried to raise some arguments about the EGS accreditation, the recent Maltese accreditation, the fact that U.S. sources are outdated and not official (even if my contribution are lenghty in talk page, I am referring to the official Michigan, Maine and Texas website links which state something different with reference to the EGS accreditation). A prospective student has written in the talk page and "Guy" replied that the topic was "discussed to death already". I note that different administrators have written in the Rfc (@Softlavender,@Vanjagenije,@Damotclese). This has happened each time I try to raise an argument, "Guy" has the final say. He also replied by telling me that I am here to whitewash the Egs article, that I am a WP:SYN (so according to him I should not write anymore in the talk page. In other words, he believes that only long-term editors can raise their arguments and that I should wait some time before writing that EGS is accredited), then that I was a suckpuppetry, latly a meatpuppetry. In conclusion, so long as he acts as an executioner/judge/final say of the article, my contributions to the talk page would be totally worthless. My question: Is there a different administrator who can look over the article rather than "Guy"?Claudioalv (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an editor who can look at this content other than the WP:SPA Claudioalv? Who keeps demanding that we engage in novel synthesis such as listing accreditation of some courses in Malta and asserting based on this that all sources relating to questiona ble accreditaiton be removed as "incorrect", or that we portray the degrees as being recognised throughout the EU when actually the linked WP:PRIMARY source contains absolutely nothing demonstrating any obligation to accept degrees accredited elsewhere? And why is a Swiss-headquartered school only able to find accreditaiton in a country whose population is exceeded by that of many of the towns in the US state that lists its degrees as fraudulent, I wonder?

All this user has ever done is try to whitewash this article and WP:FORUMSHOP endlessly in the hope that the answer will change if the demand is repeated often enough. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is no more than a compacted form of WP:OTHERPARENT. Half of the administration is already WP:INVOLVED in this (see, your talkpage), and surely that is enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this very curious. Why should the article have an entire section on the Graduate school's lack of accreditation in 2 states in the U.S.? Do articles now have to include sections on whether they come up to the standards of the U.S.? Surely there are a zillion other organisations out there which are not accredited by similar organisations in the U.S. For example, several animal breeding organisations will not even recognise each other so should we re-write the articles to say that (imaginary example) the U.K. Hereford Bull Society is not accredited by the U.S. Hereford Bull Society? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Claudioalv: Why did you delete my posting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:] It is clear that "Guy" has more power than half of the administration. Each time I raise an argument the answer is "No" without providing any reasons. It should not take longer to see in the talk page that he is acting as a Supreme Judge/executioner/final say. It is not enough because his conduct has been reckless and biased. He just does not like that an editor (even if is a WP:SPA) raises an argument (U.S. source are outdated and that is easy to verify). I was asking to verify and update the U.S. sources, and as a result I was blocked and he tried to ban me. This is a serious problem because freedom of speech is involved. Blocking someone and attempting to ban him without any reason should not be allowed by other administrators. I am not currently asking to edit the article with the contribution I provided (even if there is consensus in the Rfc as you can easily see), I am only asking that someone else not biased can look over the article. thanks for your time. Claudioalv (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hear that Guy? Now you need to kill off the rest in single combat to gain their powers. There can be only one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The rest of them are just getting too old for this shit, Guy! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps this issue can be resolved through this venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination).  Sandstein  21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I have not deleted any your post. Claudioalv (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff.[106] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I apologize. I did not do on purpose, I guess I was writing at the same time you were writing. Sorry again. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thank you. The postings were quite close so it may have been an edit conflict. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk). Moreover I do agree with your post I have accidently deleted. Besides, the States mentioned in the article state something different than EGS degrees are fraudolent. Texas is current review the inclusion of EGS in the list (the recent Malta accreditation was not on their record), Maine and Michigan do not publish anymore any list of degrees mill. This is really easy to verify. However was not possible to address this argument in the talk page because the final say has been so far "Guy"'s judgment and if you disagree with him, he firstly block you and then he will try to ban. Welcome to the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well well, inside information. Thus indicating that you are not independent if this company.WP:COI much? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy. I am just citing the official links you have ever refused to read. You are aware of this information but you just do not care. Everyone can verify them by clicking the following: 1, 2, 3. Claudioalv (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that JzG is acting both as editor and admin in this discussion. At this point he shouldn't be taking admin actions wrt the article--he clearly has an editorial horse in this race. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article other than in an administrative capacity. One does not become involved simply by engaging with an SPA over a long period of time. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not describe the edit here[107] as "administrative". This is a large deletion being made whilst the article is under a long-standing protection allowing only admins to edit. You also stated in the Edit Summary that the addition you reverted was made against consensus - that is not my reading of the Talk page. I also find it "curious" that the admin who made the edit you reverted was the same admin who lifted the block on User:Claudioalv and refuted your accusation of sockpuppetry. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that Claudioalv has semi-disclosed a COI; he or she was asked directly about connections with EGS here and gave a long answer that didn't answer the question. He/she was asked again here, and in their answer, all they said was "I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem ...". This is not a clear answer. i have asked them again here on their talk page, and they chose to come here and continue the drama instead of answering there.

In my view it is likely that Claudioalv is being paid for their work on this article, either as employee of EGS or as a contractor. In my view - especially in light of their refusal to answer direct questions - Claudioalv should be blocked until they make a clear COI disclosure on their talk page. So much disruption they have caused - Arbcom even, and they have not addressed this basic thing, directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. I have answered your question. If you think that banning me is the right thing to do go ahead. But at least verify If I have written nonsense or contributions supported by official governmental website (Malta, Michigan, Maine and Texas). thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only real question here is why we keep going through the same old shit with this article, and why we continue to allow SPAs and COI editors to have access to it. I suggest long-term semi-protection and dealing out some indef blocks. BMK (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User BMK You are biased toward me like "Guy" because you refused to look at my contributions and the sources I provided. Are COI users not allowed to write? If I find that an article is misleading or incorrect, I join the discussion by posting my contribution. Why shouldn't do it? I have revealed my identity the first time an administrator accepted my unblock request. Do you mean that only "Guy" can edit the article and build a free encyclopedia? Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel stated that he is not the final say, but he was probably wrong at this point. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is that each time I try to raise an argument aministrators and editors prefer to define me like WP:SYN, sockpuppetry, meatpoppetry, clueless, wide-eyed and now COI, instead to verify that Michigan does not state that EGS confer degree mills, Maine does not publish any official list of No-Accredited School, Texas is currently reviewing the EGS status and an official governmental entity of a E.U. Country has conferred a legitimate accreditation (Malta even if is a small country is still a E.U. contry and part of E.U.) However, the current article states just the contrary, i.e. the school is not accredited and in the U.S. the school is specifically included in a list of degree mill (info that relies on outdated links). Claudioalv (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, the whole world is against you (except DrChrissy, apparently), and it's going to stay that way unless you provide the information that Jytdog is asking for - and do so publicly. We don't disallow paid editing, but it must be publicly declared (see WP:TOU), and we regulate the ways in which hardcore conflict of interest editors can participate (see WP:COI). As long as you fail to make a clear public declaration of your status in regard to EGS, you're going to get the same kind of treatment that the previous SPAs received. That you were able to convince a single administrator to unblock you (which he should not have done, but that's water under the bridge) is irrelevant, here you're dealing with the entire Wikipedia community, and we are passionate about keeping the encyclopedia neutral and not letting it be taken over by any outside entity for promotional purposes (see WP:PROMO). BMK (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you before Claudioalv, I strongly urge you to complete the COI disclosure work and stop battling here. You are digging yourself a very deep hole the more you push in this way. You will of course do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really want this seemingly notable-enough article to be deleted just because people are disrupting it? Will that win us anything, or will the ones who disrupt Wikipedia be winning? Can this just be semi-protected for a very long time instead and forgotten about already? LjL (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of block

Timeline of block Much of the problem here seems to focus on JzG's block of Claudioalv. I have prepared below a timeline of the relevant edits.

• (22:30, 9 February) Claudioalv's first contribution ever to WP is to Talk:European Graduate School here.[108]

• (22:48, 9 February) Claudioalv's second contribution ever is again to the Talk:European Graduate School page here.[109]

• (00:20, 10 February) JzG reverts Claudioalv here[110]. Reverting another user's posting on a talk page is in itself actionable.

• (00:20, 10 February) Jzg indefinitely blocks Claudioalv, leaving edit summary "(Abusing multiple accounts)" according to Claudioalv's block log.

• (16:16, 10 February) Claudioalv's first contribution to their own talk page was here[111] asking to have their block lifted.

• (23:48, 16 February) Jzg's first ever contribution to Claudioalv's Talk page is here[112].

In other words, I am unable to find any evidence of a discussion about any problem that JzG had with Claudioalv before blocking them. Claudioalv does not have appear to have been warned about the possibility of a block, nor indeed even notified about their block. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement that one be warned before one is blocked. You still have much to learn. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you that has much to learn - about misrepresenting others postings. Read it again. Where have I said there is a requirement? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come now, DrChrissy, whatever you are, you cannot convince me that you don't understand what "implication" means. Please don't take us for nitwits. BMK (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The implication is only in your head. The reason I raised the lack of warning is that JzG was dealing with a new user. It seems only fair to me that an admin should warn a user of what may happen if the admin is disagreeing with their editing behaviour. Are you seriously arguing that it is appropriate for an admin to block a new user without discussing the problem first and warning them a block is possible? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it were in my head, it would be an "inference" not an "implication" But it ain't. BMK (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Address my question, please. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The timeline is right there on the talk page; I will agree that Guy would have done well to talk before blocking. However, User:DrChrissy, I can't help but think that you are exporting a personal problem with Guy to this thread, and I should warn you that you shouldn't. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this at all. I was shocked to see a very experienced admin block a new editor after only 2 edits. I looked further into this and was even more shocked that I could find no evidence to support the reason given for the block, and that there was apparently no discussion with the blocked editor about their behaviour. This, to my mind, is a misuse of the blocking tool. The time line is not clear from the User's talk page because the editor was not informed about their block - I am simply clarifying the timeline and also pointing out that a users posting on a talk page was reverted with no justification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting extensive bickering between two editors that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread (other than to question one-another's motives for being on this board to begin with). BMK is free to open another thread to examine DrChrissy's editing patterns if he believes there are long-term behavioural issues, but this is not the place. Nor is this extensive divergence into back-and-forth assertions about eachother's experience, motivations, and block history helping to resolve any of the issues of this thread, as both contributors should have realized two posts in. Please stay on topic. Snow let's rap 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Shocked" my Great Aunt Fanny. You know, DrChrissy, the more I see your edits in Wikipedia space, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling in order to cause disruption. I'm also starting to wonder about your putative lack of experience here. I would advise other editors to keep a close watch on DrChrissy's noticeboard editing - perhaps it might strike a chord with someone as reminiscent of a previous editor, maybe even someone with a bone to pick with Guy. BMK (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (E/C)@Beyond My Ken: Apologies for shocking your Great Aunt Fanny. Please could you keep the subject of your comments directed to the content, not the editor. Please answer this question directly. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If not, you are invited to strike that last comment. DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, nothing to strike. My growing impression from your Wikipediaspace editing is that you seem to be deliberately causing problems, just as my 'impression from your conduct is that it's possible you're not as much of a newbie as you claim to be. Those impressions didn't come out of nowhere, they're based on the quality and content of your edits, and they lead to certain possibilities which I would like the community to keep an eye on. BMK (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Are you sure you are discussing this with the correct editor? I have never claimed to be a newbie apart from my very first edits over 5 years ago. My user page shows I have been registered for 5 years and 26 days and this box has been on my user page for as long as I can remember. I repeat, are you confusing me with another editor? DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC) No, DrChrissy, I know very well that every time you get into trouble, you beg for leeway because you've not been here long enough to know all the ins and outs of the place. I also know that although you were registered in 2011, your editing counts were quite modest until 2015. [113]. I also know that 2015 was the year that your edits to Wikipedia space took off. [114]. (You seem to want to have it both ways: "I am not a newbie" and "Give me a break, I haven't been here that long.") In short, I know who I'm talking about, I'm talking about you and your editing and your disruptions. Those are facts, the questions that're open are if you are being deliberately disruptive or not, and whether the community will see fit to do something about it, eventually. (Aside from your two topic bans, I mean - you do realize that most editors go through their entire productive editing life without ever being topic banned?) BMK (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) That's pretty rich coming from an editor who has been site blocked 9 times! I would ask for diffs about my "beg for leeway", but I won't, because they do not exist. As for the frequency of my edits over time - I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Anyway, this is all getting well off the subject of the thread and I am sure readers are totally fed up with your false accusations, so I will leave the last word to you. DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC) DrC, it's difficult to describe the many inaccuracies in your post. I have never been "site blocked". I have been blocked for edit warring, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a misdemeanor, for very short periods of time, and when the block is over, I have been free to continue editing, unencumbered by any restrictions. The most serious item in my block log is the one for "abusing multiple accounts", which was, basically, a misunderstanding when I changed screen names without notifying anyone about it - it's all explained in the "My History" link on my talk user page, which has been there for years - full disclosure of everything. I have never been banned in any respect, as you have. You seem not to understand that your two topic bans are very big deals indeed, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fairly major felony. The next step up from multiple topic bans is, most likely, a complete 'site ban, which would indefinitely forbid you from editing Wikipedia again until the ban is lifted. You've already seen how hard it is to get a topic ban removed, please just imagine how hard it is to get un-site banned. My final advice to you, which you don't want and won't listen to, is to straighten up your act, stop disrupting the noticeboards to make trouble for admins you believe you have grievances against, stop pushing fringe theories in your editing, and edit strictly according to policy. If you do that, you have a chance that your future history here will go a different way, if you don't -- well, as was said below, you're hearing the sound of the community losing its patience with your nonsense. BMK (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) I'm pretty sure DrC is not a sock, but ... that sound you hear? It's the community's patience being stretched and it's nearly at snapping point. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Quite possible, I've been wrong about socks before - but I've more often been right. In any event, I've decided that DrC is really not worth the time or attention -- the bottom line is that he's your standard fringe advocate who simply can't work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on non-standard medicine and science, and appears to hold Guy - a firm advocate of those policies - responsible. DrC's motivations are totally transparent, as are his methods. Although more disruptive and persevering than some, his type is pretty much a dime-a-dozen around here, so it's best to let him work his way into more sanctions on his own, since he seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes (like our friend Claudioalv here). BMK (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudioalv picked up right where a blocked user left off. Checkuser subsequently showed that Claudioalv is a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. Another admin assumed good faith and unblocked. As we now see, Claudioalv has done precisely as expected: wasted hours and hours of volunteers' time with querulous demands, novel synthesis and circular argument.

As a matter of simple fact, removing talk page comments by suspected socks is not actionable. It's perfectly acceptable.

DrChrissy would be wise not to keep coming to the drama boards with vendettas and vexatious complaints. That is likely to lead to a ban form Wikipedia space to go with your other two bans. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in fact, your reason for blocking "(Abusing multiple accounts)" was erroneous. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not. It was a WP:DUCK block for sockpuppetry, it turns out that the user is a meatpuppet not a sock puppet, but we do not draw any distinction between the two. One WP:SPA is banned, another pops right up, we block. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say there should be more than a mere "suspicion" of sockpuppetry before removing talk page comments becomes perfectly acceptable. LjL (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's fun to poke someone you have disagreed with, but please have a quick look at the underlying issue first. That would avoid appearing to support an obviously problematic user who wants Wikipedia to promote the idea that a shonky business selling degrees has accreditation (re shonky, see for example this list of institutions whose degrees are illegal to use in Texas—the list includes EGS). Many people try to promote stuff on Wikipedia every day, and people like JzG/Guy who deal with them should be thanked and supported, not obstructed with the above retaliation from some unrelated past disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "mere suspicion". There have been a lot of WP:SPAs at that article, and a lot of sockpuppetry too. As usual with a subject whose self-image is at odds with the reliable independent sources, they want to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem. And as usual the problem is that the facts undermine their commercial activities. This is not our problem to fix, of course. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to assume I'm having "fun" to "poke" you because we have disagreed. We have agreed, too. I do not particularly care about the underlying issue here, either. I do take issue with your wording: maybe there was more than "suspicion", but I didn't come up with the "suspicion" terminology, I was reacting to your claim that "removing talk page comments by suspected socks is [...] perfectly acceptable". I do not think that's generally accurate, is all. LjL (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Was that addressed to me? I have no recollection of any disputes with you, which doesn't mean they didn't happen, just that anything that may have happened is currently filed in the ox of things where reasonable people may differ. I don't have any impression of any problematic history between us, and I have no intention of excavating links to try to find one. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, in the packed discussion, LjL mistook Johnuniq's post just above for one of your own. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right Snow Rise, I conflated the two comments. But as a matter of fact, just like JzG says, I can neither confirm nor deny any disputes with him, but whether or not they occurred is irrelevant because they are not the reason I posted here. LjL (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me add something that may help show I'm not here to annoy Guy: I was informed a while ago, by a checkuser, that it's not even really considered acceptable for me to place "suspected sock" tags (the type with documentation that actually explains they're the ones to be used by non-admins) on user pages of users who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. But then, conversely, blanket removal of comments by editors who are suspect of sockpuppetry is always perfectly acceptable? I can recognize it's acceptable in some cases, perhaps including this one, but I just disagree with that blanket statement. LjL (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment From An Outside Perspective: Ok, after looking over all of this, why the hell is the community spending so much time on a C-class article? Don't we all have more important things to do? If Guy and Claudioalv want to go at it, jut let them. We already know that Claudioalv would end up getting blocked. Also, why the hell this article? Who will ever look at this, besides the two going at it above? Shouldn't we be putting our effort towards something positive? Remember, I'm just looking at this without any involvement. TJH2018 talk 02:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing else is needed to be done. The article is protected (if it's not deleted, I imagine it will remain protected for quite a while). If so, fine. From there, individuals can make edit requests on the talk page. Any admin including Guy can respond to those requests. The talk page shows that the edit requests are broad based language about accreditation and Guy has been rejecting them. That's fair to me since the page is under heavy dispute and there's no indication of consensus to support adding any of that language to the article. The next steps are to pursue WP:DRR or better yet to actually provide the support that would get Guy or any admin to see that there is support for including the text into the page. There is currently an RFC on including the Malta and that's going on how it goes on. If you want to be taken seriously here, don't make 500 demands for variations of puffery based on stringing together things into a source and expect us not to see what's going on here. If there's an RFC on Malta, don't bring up the state of Michigan and keep on expanding it to test how much you can get away with; it's not helping. If say there was something like a refusal by Guy to add a faculty member here, then fine but I'm not seeing anything like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just providing an update. My back-and-forth with Claudioalv is wrapping up and I expect that you will hear from each of us in the next day or two. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is always a tough balancing act. So we have a particular scenario here which often frustrates administrative efforts. We have an article on a small(ish) private institution which is purported to have dubious business practices--it might be a degree mill as here, or perhaps predatory publisher, as in the case of the last time I saw a similar discussion here at ANI. The article gives every impression of having been started as an effort to publicize the institution, polish(and/or whitewash) its image and generally raise its profile, but the article does just barely satisfy WP:GNG by the skin of its teeth. The institution and its employees are obviously savvy to online marketing and organized enough to create headaches for the Wikipedians who have to grapple with them. Initially socking investigations are done with at least some degree of depth and transparency, but nobody (who isn't a COI editor) wants to make this article the crux of their activities, even on a given day, so eventually things devolve to an "oppose on suspicion" (or even "block on suspicion") state of affairs where any new member or insistent IP is assumed to be a part of the conspiratory collective.

My own perspective on this is that, unless we have a WP:DUCK test on steroids (e.i. with their first edit, they restored the exact content removed after the last sock was blocked, something along those), then WP:Assume good faith controls and is binding on our actions. A COI editor will reveal themselves by necessity in most cases anyway, and usually pretty quickly, and we have SPI and other similar tools exactly for these situations. Like LjL and others here, I have objections to the ban hammer being the first stop, based solely on one admin's instincts, at least where there is no transparency as to the evidence that admin considered. It's not that I don't appreciate the complexity of the issue or the burden it places upon our efforts to arrest bias in these articles, its just that I think there are other community principles at play here that can become even more deeply complicated if we start acting in a reflexive manner.

Now, I want to qualify all of the above by saying that I don't know where this situation really falls in that scheme; I don't know the content well enough to say whether it or not it was appropriate for Guy to "block on sight" in this instance. I'm only echoing others here in saying that the standard simply cannot be suspicion alone; an examination of the facts is always appropriate where an admin blocked an account two edits in with only a vague summary, and the admin in question could save themselves and the community a lot of time by being more detailed and transparent about what evidence is being considered in this extraordinary action and/or by giving the suspected a sock just a tiny bit of WP:ROPE to make the situation more clear; they'll certainly take it if they are a COI. Otherwise the admin, even one in high standing in the community, is going to have to live with the fact that an indef of a new user is always going to receive deep scrutiny, as a matter of community principle. Just my thoughts on this situation in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly the user's first edit was proposing, on Talk, the same content that had IIRC previously been proposed by other WP:SPAs. And virtually every editor proposing anything on that article is a WP:SPA proposing that we (surprise surprise) remove mention of the identified issues with the place. That does rather invite suspicion. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

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

• He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [115]
  • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[116]

• Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [117]
  • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
    • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

• Here he deletes statistics of Female Genital Mutilation which are well sourced from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [118]

• He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [119] [120] [121]
  • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [122]

• He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [123] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [124]

• He was warned many times on his talkpage but always swiftly removes all warnings from his talkpage.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here. Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: <--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, . All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Ferakp (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.

Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [125] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.

Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the talkpage there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:--92.106.49.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source . Here is your source, . Here is my source about declining: . It is from 2015 and it says: In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee. Another source and source even says directly that it is declined "In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated.". About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at Female genital mutilation to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [126][127][128] He removed similar material from Iraqi Kurdistan [129] and Kurdish women. [130][131] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my Female genital mutilation edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that female genital cutting is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> . About change of this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing. This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.

I added this Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.

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

Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--92.106.49.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

References

Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There was high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. Ferakp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. WP:NPOV --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [132]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[133], Arabs[134], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [135], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:

Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [136], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called Human Rights in Rojava. I transferred those statements and sources from Rojava article to Human rights in Rojava.

Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[137]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.

[138] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture. The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. Ferakp (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:

• On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
• He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
• He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
• He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
• He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [139] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [140] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [141]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [142].
• Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, for example Amnesty International use in another their report words"ethnic cleansing" because they classify it as a ethnic cleansing. The reason why they didn't call it ethnic cleansing in the YPG/PYD related article is because it's a far away from to be classified as a ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.

Which book?

They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.

There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Kurdish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.

What is the problem with this edit, ? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: The survey group was small but the results are a reminder... My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.

Excuse me can you show my your claims about "Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.Ferakp (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's a 2014 survey on FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan here; UNICEF summary here. It could be used to update Kurdish women or Iraqi Kurdistan, or to create Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.Ferakp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on Yaşar Kemal, he posted this to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen here in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly here, where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see this. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen here about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the Yezidis are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly removed negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on Kurdish women without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed more and more reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: here, for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen here, when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
• Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --GGT (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am 100% behind my messages and edits which you mentioned. About Yasar Kemal, I told you so many times that the person was Kurdish, not a Turk. I added sources and you deleted my sources. I told you to at least keep sources and use talk page until we solve it. Try to understand it, also tell it to your friends who 24/7 try to change Hamdi Ulukaya article to show him as a Turk even though I have tons of articles even his own video about himself.
I am totally supporting the edit [143]: About the lack of interest, it is Turkish claim. If you read news like this you will realize that Turkish press is closed like in North Korea (Press freedom Index) and nothing unbiased comes from them when it comes to Kurdish related news. So, if the Kurds say that they are not allowed to open schools, they are continuously closed and international newspapers confirm them, is it not a fair to keep one biased Turkish source which claims that they weren't interested.. That's why I showed it as a claim but kept it despite the source was unreliable.
About Yazidi woman, I am going to repeat again, Dailymail is not reliable source and she is Yazidi not a Kurd. Just read her article and sources related to her. Tons of articles says she is Yazidis and Iraq. Yazidis are not Kurds, they are recognized as different ethnic group by the UN.
About the edit more: How many times, I have to explain this edit. Let me explain again even though it is already explained. About the first edit, the source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The article said that A 2015 study by Kurdish social anthropologist Kameel Ahmady found and assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. Here comes the problem. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or does it means only Iranin Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran, it is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran so I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect, let me repeat, among the Kurds in Iran, not in Western Iran as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I simply deleted because it was clearly falsified. Statement related to statistics said "is" but it's not true because the source I added clearly said that it is dropped everywhere to under 50% and in some regions, it is almost 0%. If I would have deleted "statistics", I would have deleted that 72% also. I didn't and I leave it because that is true, unlike other statistics about regions which weren't true anymore because I had source for them. I already explained 3 times that the law about FGM is allowed so that statement which says that it is not enforced is not true anymore, that's why I removed it. There is my source above. If you think that edit is wrong, then you simply protect blackwashing Kurdish pages. Keeping falsified statement about FGM, FGM statistics which is not valid anymore and statement about FGM law which also not valid anymore is nothing else than blackwashing. I would have understood if you would have for example presented statistics in table and mentioned that they are from 2011 or 2012 or have said that law wasn't accepted until 2015 but keeping those despite new sources is clearly blackwashing. Ferakp (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

You better tell this to the user who reported me.This is because the user is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles with another Turkish troll group. The same user who reported me is cooperating with Shadow4dark user, you usually find them and some other users always in same pages blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing Turkish-PKK related pages. For example, Shadow4dark has added Kurdish terrorism category to every Kurdish article he has visited and the user who reported me has cooperated with Shadow4dark, he just deleted speed deletion tag which another user added to the Category:Kurdish terrorism. The user deleted it and didn't explain or use talk page to tell why he/she thinks that it is not meeting speedy deletion requirements. The same user also tried remove my all details which neutralized the Kurdish articles. As I mentioned above, there is clear evidence that this user with other users are doing nothing else than blackwashing Kurdish articles and whitewashing articles related to them. I proved 9 times that this users is deleting newest sources and replacing with oldest ones. Also, this user has showed many my edits as whitewashing even though I proved that they are clearly related to neutralization, just read my messages above.

I'm telling it to you, FerakP. Although obviously, it goes for all of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, this is not simply a POV conflict. Of course everyone will have their perceptions of neutrality and of course some inherent bias may be present on my part. That goes without saying. However, having been involved in numerous debates about this volatile and politically sensitive region (and never raised one issue here at ANI about any user), it is very clear to me that this is not about a POV conflict (which would look like this) and that there is an important behavioural problem about this user that is certainly not the case with other users I have disputed with. Consistently adding unsourced, editorialised content based on one's perception of events, manipulating the content of sources (just as he did in his recent text about Yaşar Kemal) whilst consistently removing reliably sourced content on trivial pretexts, whilst continuously accusing others at every dispute of "blackwashing", "disruptive editing", "collaborating" is not a POV problem. It is a behavioural problem and is tendentious and disruptive editing. My having different perceptions of neutrality whilst pointing out a destructive editing pattern that continues despite warnings does not invalidate concerns raised about his editing pattern and does not reduce this to an "it goes for all of you" dispute. The editing patterns of other users here, I believe, are incomparable to that of Ferakp, who has not expanded a single article without adding positive material about Kurdish people or negative material about other ethnic groups. For all his activity on content issues, this user has only created one original article and the subject matter of that article speaks for itself. For all his stance about Kurds, which in other circumstances would be perfectly fine, he has not even expanded one Kurdish-related (or otherwise) article when ethnic issues or negative material about Kurds were not at stake. --GGT (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GGT Check my edits again, think twice, read your answer again and think again, is it really true what you just wrote here. About Yasar Kemal, I added sources and told you that sources say so. You can't force anyone to be "Turkish" if he is not. You removed details about him and my sources. You had a chance to use talk page but you just reversed my changes. I had to myself start a new section in the talk page.Ferakp (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't a behavioral problem, the POV conflict would be soon resolved as the involved editors would rationally discuss the issue and come to a NPOV compromise. ;-) But anyway, my point was that this is not ONE editor who is to blame here. But both sides are behaving wrongly. It may very well be that Ferakp is a worse offender, I'm not going to spend time making a statistical analysis of it. No matter who starts the fight, breaking Wikipedia policy is the incorrect response. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what could make me a worse offender, is it that I proved that all accusations are not true and I am absolutely right, or that I neutralized articles using reliable and newest sources. You should tell those editors that they should focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles 24/7. I am tired to clean Kurdish articles from their fictitious references (I showed 4 of them) and claims. Ferakp (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"focus on their own articles instead of blackwashing Kurdish related articles" - could not have a statement that shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. What would be "my articles" now, Ferakp? --GGT (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You understood it well, I said instead of blackwashing Kurdish articles, focus on what you know. Blackwashing Kurdish articles is not funny.Ferakp (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither is whitewashing, and this problem isn't going to go away unless we agree to keep to WP:NPOV and discuss the disagreements rationally and calmly. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Continued Disruption by User:QEDK

Seeking Admin intervention or community action to control disruption by User:QEDK. At a bit of a loss about how to deal with this:

• Spouting nonsense about G11 not applying to drafts Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here
• Reverted CSD tagging [144] on a hoax article
• Sustained and inappropriate attacks against me that need a boomarang [145] and then [146]
• [147] reverting many changes to policy and immediately asking User:Callanecc [148] to fully protect the page "due to edit warring" to protect his preferred text.
• Seeking more eyes on his nonsense [149] at AN after he spectacularly failed to get any support for a topic ban against me
• Canvassing and speculation about tag teaming [150]
• General incivility and lack of WP:COMMONSENSE

I'll just leave this for less frustrated people to look into. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained twice what I said. You did not read them because you were busy making a revenge ANI thread.
• Yes, so? That draft is not a hoax and I am not allowed to be BOLD when that's been the principle on which you've been acting all the time.
• Where are the personal attacks?
• I reverted changes to policy because none of them were community-vetted. To prevent people from editing policies on ILIKEIT basis was my intention.
• Why not? You're scared or what?
• Where have I been incivil? Where's the lack of commonsense?

There's nothing to look into, except ofc, your own ANI thread. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose it's too hard, but a kindly admin should take QEDK in hand and try to explain what is helpful and what is not. @QEDK: What do you think about WP:NOTWEBHOST? Should passers-by be able to store stuff indefinitely "because it's a draft"? How could this page ever be useful? Why did you edit it four times to remove the CSD tag? Was the tag wrongly applied and you wanted to make sure the paperwork was done correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I removed it, added a wrong tag, restored previous, removed it, so 4 times. Yes, I believe all userspace drafts should be indefinitely stored unless and until it violates Wikipedia policies like BLP violations or UP#COPIES, drafts are drafts because they are not fit to be articles, there's no reason to remove them. There's nothing to suggest I've done anything which is against policy and if so, do cite such. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the point: no competent editor could think the page under discussion is a user space draft—it's obvious junk and needs to be deleted to send the message that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Get WP:NOTWEBHOST revoked if you want people to store stuff here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? NOTWEBHOST prevents you from treating Wikipedia like your personal blog, memorial or wiki or cloud. That draft is legitimate and contains information about a certain Stephen Reynolds. Please read Wikipedia policies completely before you say something again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing in your diffs or in a quick general look at QEDK's recent edit history that is disruptive or uncivil. Your accusation that they are not ignoring the rules (the policy that is invoked by WP:COMMONSENSE) makes them deserving of commendation rather than reprimand.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How long are you going to put this charade up? Not to mention, if you really had read the whole thing, it says When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The {{essay}} disclaimer also covers that it is not "as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• A point of correction about bullet point #4 in the opening post of this thread: @QEDK: You didn't ask Callanecc to protect it, you posted at WP:RFPP (request), correct? If your request was inappropriate, it most likely wouldn't have been granted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask at RFPP. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to say you asked User:Callanecc directly, he/she just happened to pick up the request. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Baseless. —Cryptic 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that some of this seems like a full-scale vendetta of QEDK and Godsy against Legacypac. Perhaps it's QEDK and Godsy that need a MfD topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought that this was an April Fools' Day joke until I realized it was posted on March 31.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That is good joke. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, neither side is exactly blowing me away with the quality of their behaviour here. But QEDK, I think you've honestly lost the plot here. We're talking about a draft that hasn't been edited in six and a quarter years. A draft that is stub-length and pertains to a topic that not a single independent RS has been supplied for, in defense of any notion that it might represent a mainspace article under even the most hypothetical of circumstances. You have taken the position that drafts, including those hosted in User space, can be maintained in user space indefinitely, even if they do not represent any realistic possibility of being improved into actual encyclopeadic content. I will say first of all that this position is completely inconsistent with general community consensus as to the appropriate uses of User space--as the landslide delete vote I hope has convinced you of at this point.

But even if you don't accept that general principle, what possible benefit to the project could you see in this material? How can it possible be worth going to the mat, creating this kind of battleground atmosphere and wasting the time of the community to try to preserve this? Is this really a case of you pursuing this over particular readings of G11? If so, may I suggest you are failing to see the forest for the trees in rather an extreme way? Or is there truth to what others have suggested here--that this is driven more by existing animosity between you and Legacypac? Because honestly, at this point, I don't know which of these two options would be more reflective of skewed editorial priorities. All I can say for sure is that you are driving hard against what seems to me to be a WP:SNOW issue, the result of which is that a lot more community energy is being expended over this matter than can be reasonably justified, and that's not likely to have any kind of beneficial outcome for anyone. I'm not sure what your stance is at this point in the deletion discussion, but I think you should reconsider your position on that point at least, if you haven't already. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

QEDK is doing nothing wrong. WP:N doesn't apply to drafts, WP:V doesn't apply to drafts, even BLP doesn't actually to drafts. We've already said that hoaxes in Draftspace can't be deleted since V doesn't apply. It is the rampant deletionists who are out to alienate all these editors who are at fault here. 107.72.99.22 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP applies everywhere. And WP:G3 (blatant hoaxing) also applies everywhere, as do the rest of the general speedy deletion criteria. Drafts are not immune. clpo13_(talk) 23:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that a few editors at MfD seem to believe that local consensus against the general criteria applying to drafts/userspaces should dominate global consensus. This is the third time I've seen a comment claiming that a general criteria does not apply to draftspace and the fourth time I've seen a comment claiming BLP doesn't apply to draftspace. These were not repeated claims by the same editor; it's been a different account (or in this case, IP) every time. This is going to wind up at ArbCom if we can't even agree on the fact that "all pages" include drafts. ~ Rob^Talk 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, essentially we've been told if someone puts something in userspace, it doesn't matter if the topic is ever notable or even if it true, it can stay forever since those criteria only matter if it's being discussed for movement into mainspace and until the editor returns (even after say five/six/seven/even ten years), BLP and all the other rules don't apply. Even complete nonsense claiming someone "invented" a type of paint that has been proven to be false is not enough in the ridiculous belief that someone could later find information that supports the claims about a person already dead for 100 years drafted five years ago (either a troll or someone's belief that their grandfather invented it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree heavily with QEDK, but I don't think anything he's done warrants administrator action at this time. The most troubling thing was the revert and then immediate call for page protection, but that's been largely undone now. We should close this and move on before more editor time is wasted. The best thing anyone here can do is participate more actively in MfD so consensus at MfD more closely matches general consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 03:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• My position is already clear. I've said that content policies like notability are not to be applied to drafts, for the simple reason - they are drafts. I don't see any point to deleting drafts because they are not fit to be articles. It's understandable that BLP and CSD#G criteria apply to drafts or anything likewise. You all spectacularly fail to see Legacypac's invalid moves, which I find quite interesting, not to mention he's already admitted why he does so. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary?

Here _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy should be blocked for the legal threat, but his claim should also be investigated, especially if it's a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Baseball_Bugs, I think I know 'who' the IP is. But obviously cannot say. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Lambert (undercover police officer) is a hatchet job to all intents and purposes for a different Bob Lambert. The Ballyseedy IRA "Bob Lambert" is not well-sourced - it appears to be from a 2008 book by Peter Cottrell. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Collect. I was not referring to the honey-trap guy. The IP has effectively outed himself though. Has the IP been blocked yet? I wouldn't call the Cottrell work a particularly WP:RS- it's a short guide rather than based on research._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for attempting intimidation through legal threats. That being done, it may be worth looking into their concerns to make sure our content regarding that person is well sourced or removed. HighInBC 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, as above, I would suggest removing it until we have a better source than Cottrell. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any wonder so many people think Wikipedia is run by idiots? As Jimbo Wales said, The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.}}

The difference here, which isn't terribly important right now, is that the highly offensive, unsourced, and apparently quite dubious content dealt with a deceased family member rather than a living person. Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. This is not the behavior of genuinely reasonable, sensible people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Did you even notice the part where we took their complaint seriously? I am not sure if Jimbo has attempted to find a consensus to change our no legal threats policy, but as the policy stands we need to block people who have active threats of legal action.

We are not lawyers and we cannot respond to legal threats in a competent way. We block the person with an explanation as to why, we let them know that if they retract the threat the block can be reversed. And we look into the complaint to see if it is valid. I think you are not seeing the whole situation here. HighInBC 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Did you even notice what I actually wrote? I posted that Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. It's evident from their talk page that that statement is 100% accurate. The boilerplate language posted to the IP's talk page gives no sign whatever that their concerns are being taken seriously. The OP here violated policy by not providing the IP with the mandatory notice of / link to this discussion. This episode is just another FUBAR situation caused by inbred Wikipedia editors being more concerned with the selectively chosen rules of the game here than with matters of genuine substance. It's an embarassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling people inbred - really? SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: SQL^{Query me!} 11:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still having this discussion? The IP has been blocked for legal threats. Close the thread.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the behavior of other editors is being discussed as well. The thread should not be closed yet. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: yes I read what your wrote, did you write what you meant me to read? I did "reach out" to the IP in that I left a notice explaining our position on legal threats. We did look into their concerns and address them. Perhaps you could better communicate what it is you think we should have said to the IP, or better yet say it to the IP yourself then teach us by example. As it is you are very poorly communicating what your actual concerns are. HighInBC 00:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A friendly chat re how best to handle legalistic footstomping

• Frankly, I never bought the received wisdom that we must block legal threat-eners on sight, particularly where the threat isn't directed specifically at other editors, which is usually the sign of an actual attempt to "chill". So what if someone says "Fix this or I'll sue!"? The Foundation knows how to take care of itself; if we're following our own rules there's nothing to worry about; and (most importantly) blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints.

So why do we block for legal foot-stomping, instead of just ignoring the threat and engaging the complaint, at least as long as the person seems to be listening? If they won't engage and just keep making threats (especially, as I say, against other editors) then block as with any other persistently unconstructive behavior. EEng 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the big reasons is that any form of intimidation has a chilling effect that damages our neutral point of view. If someone can say "The article should be like this or bad things will happen" that creates a very strong bias. Our WP:NLT policy is of course open to discussion and if consensus is found even change. HighInBC 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Duh, thanks for recapitulating what we all know is the logic of NLT. The questions (I guess I'll have to say again) are: whether a vague legalistic threat is, in fact, intimidating (which is different from whether it's meant to be intimidating); and (whatever the answer to that) whether instablocking is, in fact, the most useful way to respond. Since almost all "legal threats" come from very new editors, the idea that such blocks act as a warning to others [underlined portioned added later, to clarify] doesn't hold much water. EEng 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the attitude. I am enforcing the NLT policy as it is written, if you want that changed then seek consensus for that change and I will follow that instead. HighInBC 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't question whether you were enforcing policy as written. The question was raised above whether our policy re/treatment of LTs is wise, at least one other editor seemed interested in kicking that around, and I joined in. There's no need for you to explain to experienced editors that the way to get policy changed is to seek consensus, that you as an admin would abide by such change, and other bits of obviousness. EEng 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page of the policy would be a good place to have a discussion about that. If what I was saying was really obvious then you would be talking about it there. HighInBC 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, because discussants at ANI often kick an idea around in the context of a particular incident before making a formal proposal elsewhere -- though the literal-minded, and those who like everything bureaucratically pigeonholed, may find that bothersome. Perhaps you just let those who wish to discuss, discuss, without further metadefending your need to defend your earlier defense of an administrative action that I didn't question? EEng 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user can sue Wikipedia, or he can edit Wikipedia, but he can't do both. If an editor recants and disavows his legal threat, then an unblock can be considered. If he doesn't, then he stays blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You too are just repeating what we all know to be the current policies/practices, and chanting appealing-sounding syllogisms. Anyway, someone who says, "I'm so mad, if this isn't fixed I might sue WP!" hasn't sued anyone yet, and I'm trying to raise the question of whether those policies/practices best keep that from happening, and best get any errors corrected. Based on the straw-poll so far, however, it appears that for the moment the ground is not fertile for a reexamination of such questions. EEng 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My position is that it is not just the current policy, but that it is a good idea and a good practice. I am not just repeating the policy, I am defending it. I can't speak for Bugs but I suspect they are not just repeating something they heard, but rather expressing an opinion. I think you are belittling both of us by suggesting our defence of the policy are just "appealing-sounding syllogisms". I would love to continue this discussion on the talk page of the NLT policy, if you have any concrete proposals on how to improve things. HighInBC 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My original post asked whether the time-honored NLT arguments really are valid (for example, "blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints") but neither of you even acknowledged that question. Like I said, this doesn't seem like the time to shout into the wind. One thought for the future, however, is that someone should ask Foundation legal what they think about all this. Businesses often receive threats of suit, but they don't simply hang up the phone when that happens. (And yes, I realize WP isn't a business, but the point remains.) EEng 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I did answer your question by suggesting that our NLT policy was about avoiding intimidation in Wiki. The block is not for the benefit of the person blocked, and it is not an attempt to prevent law suits. It is taking legal matters off of Wikipedia because nobody here is qualified to deal with these matters. You responded with "Duh" and then acted like nobody was listening to you. You might not have liked the answer to your question but you got an answer. HighInBC 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone makes extra-Wikipedia threats, be they legal or physical, they have forfeited their editing privileges. There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: actually, under the current WP:NLT policy as tweaked around the end of 2015 (I think), a user can sue Wikipedia (or one of its editors for Wikipedia issues), as long as they don't threaten here to sue: "That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia". I do not particularly endorse those changes, and I think they went under a bit of silence. LjL (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose someone decides to sue me for some unknown reason. How would they found out just who they should sue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: what, you mean your real name is not Baseball Bugs?! Damn, I better disclaim that cease&desist letter I sent Mr Bugs... LjL (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But supposing someone uses a pseudonym, what would the plaintiff do? Get some court order compelling Wikimedia to break confidentiality? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: yes. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, people on Wikipedia can write pseudonymously, but they can also write with their real name and they shouldn't feel all the chills and their effects, IMO. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a "legal threat" is an intimidation from freely editing articles, based on possible legal action, which creates chilling effects. What is more of an intimidation with such effects than actual legal action taking place? "Oh but I didn't threaten it, I just did it" doesn't impress me a lot as a get-out-of-jail-free card. LjL (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of legal threats policy

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Baseball Bugs, Collect, HighInBC, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, WaltCip, and EEng:

With all due respect to the blocking administrator and everyone else who has supported the block, this situation has been badly mishandled. As has been explained on this noticeboard several times before, a statement that something written on Wikipedia is "libelous" or "defamatory" is not, in and of itself, a "legal threat", any more than a statement that something is a copyright violation is a legal threat. A "legal threat" is a statement (or perhaps a very strong implication) of the writer's intention to sue one or more editors or the Wikimedia Foundation, or take some similar action against them. In the case of this particular edit, which deals with something that occurred in 1923, no legal claim for defamation could be brought even in theory because, at least in most jurisdictions (including the U.S., the U.K. and Ireland), only living persons can sue for defamation.

The misconception that any passing reference to an article's content as being defamatory constitutes a legal threat seems to remain widespread even though this issue was dealt with in an arbitration decision I wrote and which was unanimously adopted six years ago (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2#Principles in page history). As explained in that decision, and as subsequently written into the policy page that everyone is citing, at Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, use of words such as "libelous" or "defamatory" is discouraged because such language could be misinterpreted or perceived as a legal threat and thus damages the editing environment. Nonetheless, the policy specifically states in discussing editors' use of such language, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention" and that is certainly what should have occurred here.

Even if a more express legal threat had been made, and even if the "threat" would have had more substance even if it had been made, allowances must be made for newcomers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing norms and policies, and who may be reacting out of unhappiness or anger at the treatment of themselves or a family member on the largest and most prominent interactive website in the world. See generally, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and in a related context, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, all of which seriously discourage blocking as a first response except in extreme situations.

Policy should always be enforced with due regard to what Wikipedia is and what we are all trying to accomplish here. The situation at the moment is that someone reached out to us angrily because he or she perceived that an ancestor was being unfairly maligned, and we struck back by immediately preventing them from editing any more coupled with a barely tailored template pointing them to a complicated policy page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The block should be reversed and a more reasonable explanation of our editing policy and the reasons for it should be provided to the IP, with the request that he or she bring any further concerns to the article talkpage. It is only out of the possibility that perhaps I have missed something that I am holding off on unblocking pending a bit more discussion, rather than unblocking immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The block should stay until or if the user recants and disavows this statement: "‎The Ballyseedy Massacre and its aftermath: Bob Lambert did not order the killing of three Free State leaders in March 1923 and any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read any portion of what I wrote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You consider that threatening statement to be a "passing reference"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You should likely note that I did not say that the IP should be blocked - in fact I pointed out that the claim he objected to was poorly sourced in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I didn't attribute any statement to you. I pinged everyone who had commented in the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want this re-statement of policy to become the emphatic norm amongst the community at large, I'd suggest pinging a helluvva lot more editors than just those involved here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They did not just say it was defamatory, they said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". "will be treated" is a threat of action. It was clearly meant to have a chilling effect.

I feel the block was in line with policy and our best practices. I don't think it is good for our NPOV to let users intimidate others like that. If you want to reverse the block go ahead, but please take responsibility for any future intimidation this user attempts. HighInBC 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor was actually following our WP:BLP (removing unsourced information). We even use the word defamatory in the WP:BLPREMOVE Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material.... That the IP editor did not know the magic word "BLP," but rather used common sense is not a reason to block; furthermore, such reactionary blocking is far more "chilling" than ambiguous edit summaries. NE Ent 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee I hate to repeat myself, but they did not just say "defamatory". They said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". This is a threat of action. The phrase "will be treated by [my] family" is a promise of action as shown by the words "will" and "be treated". The words "his family, my family" shows that the threat is coming from them and not just a warning about a 3rd party. This is not simply someone saying something is defamatory, it is showing an intent to take action.

The NLT blocking template explains what caused the block and what they can do to get unblocked. They can retract the threat any time. HighInBC 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, User:Newyorkbrad. User:Baseball Bugs, what are you doing back here? I thought you'd been kicked off the admin noticeboards years ago for this type of stupid shit-stirring. As for the rest of you, especially User:HighInBC, "treated as defamatory" does not equal "I will sue you". It might. But it might mean a letter to the WMF. It might mean taking the issue to ANI or BLPN. Or something else. Clarify what the editor means before acting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong, on all counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your ad-hominem attack against Bugs does little to contribute to the conversation. Nothing is gained by attacking people who disagree with you. HighInBC 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't been particularly active of late, so it's understandable why he's behind the curve on these matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not strong enough to fall under NLT directly, but it's uncivil and chilling to vaguely hint at some kind of consequences, even—or perhaps especially—where it's just as likely the threat refers to extrajudicial action. There does need to be an adequate WP:DOLT assessment here, even if we don't consider it as actionable under NLT. All that said, I would caution us all against letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, to the extent of only allowing NLT blocks where a "reasonable anticipation of litigation" arises. NLT may be interpretable in that way, but I believe the practices of the community have redefined the policy in such a way that NLT is broader than that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chillum, you have access to the block tool. You don't have to pull it out and wave it about in situations like this. Just talk to the man for Christ's sake. "Sorry. We're looking into it. It's being discussed [[here]]. By the way, check out WP:NLT." Listen, inform, advise, be polite and helpful. Bashing people with your tool when a bit of advice will do just as well is the very definition of being a dick. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a change to NLT. As it stands legal threats call for a block, not a warning. Keep your insults to yourself, they are far more dickish then enforcing the policy that the community created. Seriously, I don't deserve to be treated this way for doing my job here. If you don't like the policy then seek to change it, don't just bitch at the guy who enforces it.

Wikipedia talk:No legal threats has not been edited since 26 August 2015‎. I follow the consensus of the community and that policy has been very stable. If you don't like the policy then change it and I will follow that. I don't pick and choose how I enforce policy. HighInBC 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." Please try to remember this in future. Now that it has been pointed out to you, if I see you blocking people for apparent legal threats without first clarifying their intentions and pointing them to WP:NLT, I'll take you straight to ArbCom. Follow policy - especially with regard to blocking or threats to block. Don't be a cowboy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Should" ≠ "shall". It's within the admin's discretion unless there's some other problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv: Yes, should ≠ shall. We allow for exceptions where intelligent admins may use their discretion, or even make the occasional error. Exceptions. Occasional. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin. EEng 18:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

When someone makes a legal threat, the only editing they should be allowed to do is to go to their user page to recant and disavow the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. Perhaps I should have said, "This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter)." EEng 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hatting this before it drags on further. GABHello! 22:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you don't like the policy, you should lobby for changing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired, blinkered restatement that ignores everything anyone's said here. This block-happy refusal to exercise judgment, or even to recognize that judgment can be exercised, is distressing to see in an admin (or in any other editor, for that matter). EEng 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, man, it's like deja vu. It's like deja vu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Another tired attempt to distract from the failure to exercise judgment. EEng 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for keeping it to the executive summary this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's one thing I learned while on Wikipedia is that admins and editors don't know what a legal threat is and will block someone based on their own interpretations of what a legal threat is. I was once blocked until I "took it back," Meanwhile, on my talk page 90% of the editors commenting criticized the block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to that, and no, that is not a legal threat. The ADL is not a court of law. If I said, I'm going to email CNN about you, is that a legal threat? No. Admins need to follow policy and just saying, "I'm going to email/contact X" is not a LEGAL threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Its intent was to intimidate, hence it qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, you and most admins need to read up on the NLT policy. Newyorkbradkindly posted it and reiterated that a legal threat requires a legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless your threat was intended as a joke, it qualifies, and you were properly blocked for it - and reinstated once you disavowed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that what I have said here does not require any change to the existing policy, but adherence to the existing policy as per modifications made as long ago as 2010.

I any case, I am going to unblock the IP now with an appropriately tailored message about collaborative editing, even though I realize that if this is a dynamic IP, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's review: "any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory.)" Now, what could be done about defamatory material on Wikipedia? Here's an incomplete list.

1. remove it using the English word "defamatory" in the edit summary
2. remove it using the wiki lingo "BLP"
3. refer it to WP:BLP
4. email info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL
5. post on AN
6. post on your favorite admin's talk page
7. post {{admin help}} on the article talk page
8. post a comment on the article talk page
9. post a comment on the inserting user's talk page
10. find someone on wmf:Staff_and_contractors and email them
11. email cu-ombuds-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org per meta:Ombudsman commission
12. file a lawsuit
13. threaten to sue an contributor

Of those, only the last two are blockable legal threats. To decided "action" means "legal action" without evidence is an assumption and we have a policy on that: assume good faith. The simplest, least drama solution to simply notify the editor of the right thing (e.g. WP:BLP ) to do rather than inform them of the wrong one. NE Ent 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Watch -- now someone will say that if you want to change the NLT policy you should get consensus. EEng 03:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AGF is a policy meant to apply to run-of-the-mill editing, where an assumption of good faith can be made. An assumption of bad faith cannot itself be taken as an act of good faith, and therefore any action that violates AGF should not be defended on the grounds that we are "required to assume good faith". Furthermore, NLT is designed to protect Wikipedia editors from suffering a chilling effect, and prevent other users from imposing such an effect on them; it's all about the intention of the person making the threat and the effect it has on the mental state of the user(s) who receive it. In other words, it's all about context. Saying "I will take action if this defamation continues" is very clearly an attempt to impose a chilling effect, even if the word "action" is not preceded by the word "legal" (it is always implied). If you (NE Ent, or Newyorkbrad, or anyone else) or the user receiving the implied legal threat has to go out and look into defamation laws in such-and-such jurisdiction, and find out if it matters whether one jurisdiction has one rule and the other another, that a chilling effect was had is obvious, and therefore a block should be made pending a withdrawal or explanation that no legal threat was made. Saying that AGF trumps NLT in all cases except where the guilty party used the exact words "I will sue you" or "I will pursue legal action", or any such proposal, goes very strongly against the spirit of NLT. And calling it an AGF-violation to request or to make an NLT block because of a borderline NLT-violation is essentially saying "this user is obviously lying when they say they suffered a chilling effect", which is itself a much worse AGF-violation.

A good compromise, of course, would be to force blocking admins to always remind users blocked for NLT-violations that a clarification that there was no intent to cause a chilling effect or engage in actual legal action will result in an unblock.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

Wikicology has made a legal threat here, claiming 'Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information.' Background: he has created an article about himself (actually the seventh article about himself). See

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have challenged his claim to be a biochemist, in the 'occupation' section of the infobox [151]. He also says on his Foundation page: "I'm Olatunde Isaac, a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist". Which university does he work at? His Academia page states 'Olatunde Olalekan Isaac hasn't uploaded any papers yet'. Are there any papers? An 'academic' technically is employed by or is a fellow of some institution, or at the very least has at least one published paper.

This raises a number of interesting issues. Is it OK on Wikipedia to say you are an academic, or a scientist, given that some would regard it as a pseudonym and not really have a problem with it. Or is it a form of identity fraud, designed to improve one's standing or authority in the wiki world? Is it OK to claim invasion of privacy, even when you have written an article about yourself? Or is he saying that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and is not writing about himself? E.g. here he claims that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Here he claims that olatunde olalekan and Olatunde Isaac are two different people. "One is a notable biochemist from Nigeria(I mean Olatunde Isaac) who was known for dacryodes edulis. Olatunde olalekan is a non notable researcher".

MichaelQSchmidt has argued WP:CLEANSTART, however I can't see it is a clean start, given he has repeated exactly the behaviour we saw before, namely trying to publish an article about himself on Wikipedia, by creating a whole host of stubs, or adding material of dubious quality, ingratiating himself with the WMF in an attempt to acquire notability. We had a similar case with user:Wifione, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: What I wrote at that discussion about way-earlier poor edits only alluded to above was "Sadly, many newcomers do similar.. some from angst.. some from inexperience. For those who accept it as a learning experience and apologize and promise to not repeat those earlier errors in understanding, what is hurt by WP:AGF and allowing a WP:CLEANSTART?" That said, I see no "legal threat" in the linked quote, and simply an editor understandably worrying over "unauthorized disclosure of my personal information" shows A) a natural unhappiness about a perceived threat of WP:OUTING and B) unhappiness with your continued digging and chiding over the closed issue of his earlier inexperienced editing. WP:STICK is applicable here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some (pauses, waves hands) traits - that's really no big deal, I mean, that's part of online life. " That sort of thing, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not STICK. There are two important principles involved here. (1) Is it OK to challenge someone representing the WMF, on whether their claimed academic credentials are genuine. (2) If someone writes an article about themselves, claiming that they are a scientist or a doctor or distinguished lawyer, can they claim invasion of privacy, even though they are the subject of the article itself? Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where you got it completely wrong. Firstly I'm not in anyway a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm a volunter like anyone here. Secondly, writing about oneself is not forbidden. See WP:WWA, where there is a notice that I'm a Wikipedian with article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I imagine MichaelQSchmidt knows a thing or two about clean starts. Peter Damian (talk)

For that matter so do you and I can't see what relevance either has on two editors in good standing. Casting dirt like this just makes you look a bit of a shit and suggests that you don't really have a case and are casting dirt around instead in the hope that it will stick somewhere. Not cool Peter, not cool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference is, unlike other people, that I have never written an article about myself with the help of an army of socks. Nor have I ever lied about a sock. Nor have I claimed academic credentials, or an occupation I did not have. My two points above remain. Not cool, Spartaz. Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Firstly, I never made any legal threat. I was only trying to explain to him why it is inappropriate to intrude into ones privacy. This editor is looking for thousands of ways to embarrass me. This is against the spirit of collaboration. I have tried all I could to avoid any conflict with this editor but It seemed to me that conflict is their hobby. I had tried all I could to explain to this editor while some things happened in my earliest time on Wikipedia. I'm a bit disturbed by this editor's behavior here on Wikipedia. A quick analysis of his contribution shows that he only made 4934 edit counts in his 12 years of being on Wikipedia. Out of the 4934 edits, only 18% where made to main space, 18.98 to userpage and 31.73 to User talk pages where he moves around to attack other editors, engaging in unnecessary arguments. This is odd to me!. Yes, about two years ago, I had a competency issue, trying to write about myself without prior knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about. Then, this led me to create multiple account to write on the same topic with the believe that an article about me will stay. Few days later I knew about WP:Sock Puppetry as a policy and the implication of engaging it, I told RHaworth about the accounts and my new account, Wikicology. RHaworth decided not to block me after I told him that I will continue to contribute constructively. In fact, that was when I know that a subject must pass WP:GNG or other criteria to be included on Wikipedia. Since then, I have been contributing significantly to the project both online and offline which made me to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. We normally see all manners of disruptive behavior from new editor. This particular one is a typical example of what we normally experience when new editors join Wikipedia especially those that aren't the product of Wikipedia Workshops/training. Some of this editors later get it right and they remain a long-term and valuable editors. Wikipedia is complex, and it's often difficult for new editors to understand how the encyclopedia works. They have no idea of the basic policies and guideline, WP:GNG, WP:CV, WP:BLP and what count as WP:RS. Some of them have not even heard of the word "Sock puppetry" and any other related terms. They usually think Wikipedia is like a social media where anything goes. Hence, they unknowingly get themselves in all manners of troubles and some of them get blocked or Ban. What this editor pointed out is the oldest history of a now experienced editor who has now grown to be an asset to the community. The then, new editor is now a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee as a volunteer and was twice a grantee of the WMF. The then, non-notable "Olatunde Isaac" is now notable. I achieve this notability as a result of my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. I will also like to mention that I didn't just jumped into creating the article. I consulted Nikki Maria and MichaelQSchmidt who advised me to write it in my sandbox which I did and MichaelQSchmidt help to move it to mainspace. I don't know Peter's motive behind this dead issue perhaps he felt I'm against "WikiProject Accuracy" conceptualized by Atsme and decided to embarrass me. However, Peter fail to understand that those accounts were blocked to prevent further disruption and not as a punishment. The accounts were blocked because they were used inappropriately to create article about a non-notable person. When Wikicology was created, it was declared to RHaworth (one of the blocking admin) on his talk where Peter found it like anybody el. RHaworth allowed me to continue editing since I had promised not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and will always make good contributions on wikipedia. Per my personal information, I'm a volunteer and not a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff. I'm never under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia. Today, I can call myself a "Dog" and tomorrow, I can say I'm "human". It is not a business of any editor. Identity verification is only required if I wish to become a WMF paid staff, WP:Oversighter or WP:CheckUser. However, if I choose to become one, I will send it to WMF through a private channel, and it will be destroyed upon receipt & verification and will not be shared with anyone outside the Wikimedia Foundation. Peter started bringing my personal information to wikipedia without any authorization to do so, which I considered a breach of privacy. The growth of Wikipedia is declining because of attitude like this. How on earth will I make legal threat? Perhaps he taught I'm going to fill a suit against him for invasion of privacy. I can never fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedian. Over my dead body! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat, but there seems to be some background here that requires further investigation, as part of a WP:DOLT analysis, particularly given there seem to be claims of WP:OUTING-like violations... which in my view would be a mitigating circumstance for what we normally consider indef-worthy behavior. Additionally, Wikicology's response above can also be read as disavowing a legal threat... which would help get us out of NLT territory, but not necessarily out of disruptive incivility territory. Telling someone that something they're doing on-wiki is legally harms you or gives you a cause of action against that person in a post intended to cause that person to stop whatever they were doing that you believe is legally harming your or gave rise to that cause of action is the very definition of a legal threat. Legal threats need not take the form of "I am going to sue you" or "I am strongly considering suing you." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To put my analysis more simply: The following sort of statement is a legal threat: "You are doing x. By doing x you are harming my y rights. Harming someone's y rights is grounds for a lawsuit." If you say that A implies B, B implies C, and A is true, then you're also saying B and C are true. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv; thank you so much for your comment. I didn't mean it the way it was interpreted. Like I said, I can not fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedia and I'm not threatening to do so. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv I think you need to look carefully at the 'outing' claim. As I mention above, Wikicology has written an article about himself (Olatunde_Isaac), where he claims to be a biochemist. If I then ask about his credentials as a practising biochemist, qua subject of article, is that outing? Common sense suggests not. Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no right whatsoever to ask me my credential as a practicing biochemist. Do I came to you for employment? Secondly, show me the policy that says that editors should be punished for writing or editing contents about themselves. Lastly, This is a clear case of WP:OUTING. per WP:OUTING, posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But I DO have a right to ask for evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist. Are you familiar with the WP policies on reliable sources? Where, as author of the article, is your evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist? It's really simple, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything you wish to know about Olatunde Isaac is already on the article. Every claims in the article are supported by reliable sources and if you find any unsourced claim, you're free to remove it. What you're saying is like asking Gbenga Daniel to upload his credential or send them to you to verify his academic background. This attitude is disruptive and unacceptable. Wikipedia doesn't require any editor to request for other editors or subject of an article's personal information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Can I ask if you are the same person as Olatunde Isaac ? Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged not forbidden and not a Criminal offense'. Why not stop User:Jimbo Wales from editing Jimmy Wales or tag his article with COI template.? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering does nothing to help this case, and, as far as a cursory inspection goes, User:Jimbo Wales has the good sense not to edit that article. Oh, and... We don't do "criminal offences" here. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology uses hos personal page as a sort of "Wikimedia CV". I guess that's OK, it's Wikipedia related. But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim. Especially since it in the Wikipedia context is completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: If Wikicology states he's a biologist on his user page, why would he have to "back that up"...? Numerous editors here state tidbits of personal info about themselves on their userpages, often by way of userboxes. Are you saying that everyone must prove this info? That's just silly. What if they don't? Must it be removed? Should they be blocked? Do have a policy to cite in support of this? Because afaic WP:AGF applies here. If he says he says he's biologist, than just accept it. There is no reason to doubt it, and there is no reason to question it in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Essjay stated he was a Professor of Theology on his user page. That did not end well, and it says much for assuming 'good faith'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point being...? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian; with all sense of humility, I doubt if you understand the difference between a paid staff and a volunteer Wikipedian. Essjay stated that on his user page and on MEDIA. In addition, he his a paid WMF staff, oversight, checkuser and bureaucrat thus he was expected to reveal his identity. That's not the case here. I'm neither a paid WMF staff, nor oversight, or checkuser and bureaucrat. I'm a volunteer like you and anyone around. If I may ask, when did personal identity disclosure becomes a criteria to edit Wikipedia as a volunteer? Point me to that policy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're misinformed, Wikicology. Essjay was a volunteer, too. And he made statements in the media, just like you do. Can we agree that misrepresentations to the public and/or the community are not a good thing? Andreas JN466 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I didn't express any of the opinions and claims that you now ask me to I defend. So I won't. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim." Defend that.
Meanwhile, I think I'll go put a "This user is an astronaut" userbox on my user page. Will I need to prove that? - ^theWOLFchild 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear and self-evident, and don't know what your problem with that statement is. No, you don't need to prove that you are an astronaut, and I didn't say you needed to prove it, and also, no-one will believe you, just like nobody for a second thinks you are actually the child of a wolf. You are not using your real name and not making claims about who you are in reality. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Ah, I see. So any editor here that has a username that appears to be a normal name instead of a nickname, and has any type of occupation or qualification mentioned on their userpage, must "back those claims up or remove them". OK, I got it now. I understand the position you're taking. I just don't understand why. In short, why must Wikicology "back up his claim to being a biologist or remove it"...? - ^theWOLFchild 18:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing like what I said, please try to discuss this in a rational manner without these silly straw men. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

sigh... Let's look, again, at exactly what you did say; "But asking you to back up the claims you do there [user page] seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim." So, again, why should he have to "back that up"? And if he chooses not to, why should he "not make the claim"? That is the comment you made. Are you going to explain it? Or are you going to continue with your dog and pony show? - ^theWOLFchild 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Because he is making a biographical claim about himself, a real, named person, in a biography he is using to bolster his credentials as the de facto public face of Wikipedia in Nigeria. If he wasn't willing to back that up (which he was) he should not have made that claim. This is self-evidently different from you make humorous fantastical claims about your made up anonymous Wikipedia username. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But, as I already asked above, what about the numerous accounts here on WP where people use normal names, instead of nicknames as their usernames and list some type of qualification or occupation on their userpage, either in standard text or by way of Userboxes... should they all have to back up these claims as well? My 'astronaut userbox' was just an example. What about people who list more typical everyday jobs (Firefighter, Doctor, Lawyer, Military) or common university degrees? Where do you draw the line? - ^theWOLFchild 16:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Every reply you make ignores most of the things I say, and sometimes invents things I didn't say. I'm leaving this discussion now, it's not constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The line would obviously be drawn in relation to the degree to which the credential influences peer consideration of the claimant's edits. If you were using an astronaut userbox as part of a false identity, Thewolfchild, that would chill others from closely examining your edits on aerospace topics and that would be a problem. If you made false claims of membership in an elite military squad and they chilled close examination of your edits to firearms articles then that would be a problem. And if false claims that one is a lecturing biology professor chills examination of one's edits to articles on poisoning then that is clearly a problem. -Thibbs (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it was a clear legal threat. Please don't do that, User:Wikicology. There is no WP:OUTING, since you clearly identify on your user page. And it's not really right to say that you don't in any way represent the Wikimedia Foundation; your user page on Meta describes you in large letters as "Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria" etc., and your user page here features extensive descriptions of your volunteer participation in WMF activities like the Wikipedia Library. Of course as a volunteer you don't legally represent the WMF, but in a public-relations sense you do, given the press and outreach work you do in your home country.
• Now, as Peter Damian points out, we have had scandals within the Wikimedia movement before where people in leadership positions misrepresented their academic credentials, sockpuppeted extensively (you have candidly acknowledged your own sockpuppeting history), and so forth. They have harmed this movement. So it seems a fair question to me for the community to ask you whether you are in fact working as an academic or biochemist, because that is the impression your biography gives. If you just have a biochemistry degree, but are not currently working in the field, it would be better to say that (and there is no shame in that). Perhaps User:AKoval_(WMF) might like to weigh in here; you could for example provide documentation of your qualifications and current professional activity to her. At the end of the day, your fellow volunteers have an understandable desire to avoid misrepresentations that could lead to disrepute for the Wikimedia movement. As you are one of the public faces of Wikipedia in the Nigerian media, I think you should be open about this. Andreas JN466 13:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jayen466. I'm going to officially post the documentation of my credentials to the Wikimedia Foundation next week and I will Cced Anal Koval. I'm currently not in my home in Lagos. Do you think it's ideal for peter to slammed the article about me, Olatunde Isaac with WP:COI template even when it has been declared at WP:WWA? This is unfair. We don't have to be unfair with ourselves. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm daft; I had forgotten that Anna Koval recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikipedia Education Program is now managed by Floor Koudijs. Andreas JN466 11:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know the underlying matters here but that was a clear legal threat, no doubt. Maybe made in the heat of the moment, but a threat, still the same. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't dig up ancient history and newbie mistakes. But Olatunde, you wrote the latest version of the bio this month, and Michael moved it into mainspace, so now it's an issue. Writing your own bio is a violation of WP:COI. Current footnotes 1, 3 and 4 are almost identical and seem to have relied on a press release. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note Re-statement of WP:NLT here, by User:Newyorkbrad. Might be relevant to your discussions. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

I have further concerns about this editor. I was puzzled by the way that he comes across as somewhat illiterate, and yet manages to come upt with a large and apparently impressive article like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. I now have copyvio concerns. See my investigation here. As already noted by another editor, Olatunde's references either point to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. The same seems to be true of Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. He copies passages verbatim from other articles about other kinds of poisoning (such as Chlorine and Beryllium), and refs these to completely unrelated articles. E.g. he writes

Mucous membranes are primarily affected, along with type I pneumocytes and the respiratory epithelium. The generation of free radicals from lipid peroxidation results in irritation of the bronchioles and alveoli, causing rapid destruction of the respiratory epithelial cells. The reaction's net result is the release of fluids, leading to pulmonary edema.[22]

But cite-22 refers to a paper which contains none of the text whatsoever, indeed almost no references to Nitrogen Dioxide. It's like that for every part I have looked at. This is not just a copyvio issue (he is copying from Wikipedia anyway) but potentially a public health risk, I would have thought (but I am not a medical expert). Could some expert look at this article please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this subsection: ANI is not the place to handle the content aspect of disputes like these. WP:COIN would be far better. With all due respect to Wikicology I would recommend he exercise care in editing articles about himself. Aside from that and the claimed legal threat above (which has been disavowed), there is nothing here clearly meriting administrator intervention. If some wrongdoing is demonstrated, rather than merely claimed, action might be appropriate. Even then I would advise Peter Damian to take care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in pursuing this matter: To my admittedly uninformed self, this looks a bit obsessive, and could give rise to sanctions for harassing behavior. (stricken as wrongdoing has since been clearly demonstrated) (stricken per everything below) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mendaliv. Close this and other sub-sections as distractive to the main cause of complaint. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Messenger well and truly shot. Thanks Mendaliv Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fragmentation of the discussion, I think it's best to keep it in one place. FWIW, spot checks of the references in nitrogen dioxide poisoning make it seem somewhat probable that there is a real concern here. To give one example, the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." is sourced to Kattan M, et al. (2007). "Health effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and passive smoking on urban asthmatic children." The source's full text is online and mentions neither methemoglobinemia nor hypoxia, which is concerning. Doc James has said he will look into this; it would inform this discussion if he could let us know his impressions here in due course. Andreas JN466 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow...Thank you. I just read through the source and sentence myself and actually, the source provided do not support the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." But that sentence is correct.[152]. Still a mystery that I added that source, anyway.I will request an expert to clean it up. Happy easter. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm familiar with Peter's history, but I'm pretty sure you're shooting the messenger, here. After creation and initial editing by Wikicology (only), the article had 37 references. I have checked the first 10 of them. Of these, 1 cannot be retrieved, 2 support part but not all of the preceding content, and the remaining 7 all have something to do with nitrogen dioxide, but don't support the content that precedes them. There appears to be a serious misinterpretation in using one of them: "The values [for EPA recommended exposure levels] were also based on concentation of Nitrogen dioxide that show a significant and direct effects on the pulmonary function of asthmatic patients," when in fact that study showed that asthma was correlated with NO₂ exposure below the set levels. Furthermore, the article repeatedly suggests that NO₂ exposure causes heart failure; that's at most a chronic rather than an acute result of exposure, and I'm not finding literature that bears that out. (One study suggested that exposure might increase the risk of mortality from existing heart disease, which is quite a different story.) I'm afraid this suggests to me that many, though not all, of the references were added at random after the text was composed to give it greater gravitas; the example chosen above by Andreas is not a fluke. Choess (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology seems to be copying text between articles without attribution. Parts of Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, which he created on 9 January 2016 (most of it in one edit [153]) appear in Maxwell's thermodynamic surface and in User:SciFox/sandbox. For example, see the internal search result for "Maxwell sculpted the original model in clay." [154]

It appears that sources are then added to some articles inappropriately or were perhaps wrong in the original.

Wikicology, if you copy text, you should add attribution to the edit summary, such as copied content from [[page name]]. Without attribution, it's a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface. See [155] and [156]. The Gibbs thing looks like some kind of exercise. Question: user SciFox (talk · contribs) = Wikicology (talk · contribs)? - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looking at SciFox's sandbox, they appear to have started translating the article into German, which I would not expect if they were the same user. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the situation:
  • This is a legal threat[157]. That this threat has not been crossed out I find very concerning.
  • If one has written an article about themselves they have willingly disclosed their identity. But more concerning one should not be writing an article about himself. Linking to WP:WWA is not support for this. That User:Wikicology first says he was not writing about himself and now says that they are is a move forwards.
  • The policy that says you cannot write about yourself is WP:COI. It says "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." It is definitely fair for Peter to add the COI template to the article you wrote about yourself.
  • As a member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee yes they do represent the Wikimedia foundation and yes one expects a high degree of honesty. That they have blanked the article they created about them self is a positive step.[158]
  • Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has now been redirected by User:Jytdog. I am still concerned. The first referenced sentence is "It usually occurs after the inhalation of beyond the threshold limit value." supported by this ref [159]. What content in there supports this claim?
  • That Wikicology is working to improve content about Nigeria is excellent as is their efforts to promote Wikipedia in that country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean any legal threat. I crossed out this statement. I will request for cleanup on the medical related topics I wrote. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for crossing it out User:Wikicology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm looking at New York City Legionnaires' disease outbreak here. It's not the same order of serious as writing your own biography or misrepresenting sources in a biomedical article but seems to have some plagiarism and sourcing problems. I've just had guests arrive but will continue with this in a few hours.

Above, people are agitating to close this thread. Please don't. Let's keep all this in one place until we know what we're dealing with here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've finished (here).

Wikicology, first I have to say I'm very sorry you're going through this now. This can't be easy for you.

1. This article and 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks were created at roughly the same time. They both cover the 2015 Bronx outbreak, and I presume both authors searched en.Wikipedia and found no coverage of the topic before creating their respective articles.
2. You begin the article with a falsehood (the only falsehood I could find). The outbreak the article addresses isn't the first known cases of infection by Legionella pneumophila in New York City.
3. Three of the eight citations in the article don't actually support what they're meant to support.
4. There are three instances of very close paraphrasing. In the first instance you've copied from a Wikipedia article. In such cases, as SarahSV pointed out above, it's best to mention in your edit summary that you copied it from X Wikipedia article. In the second instance, you don't actually cite the source (the New York Times). That is plagiarism. You cite the source in the last instance but, if you can't think of a good paraphrase, I recommend just quoting the source directly, between " and ", otherwise you leave our reader with the impression that you came up with that form of words.

Jytdog has just redirected the article to Legionnaires' disease#History.[160] where he's written a nice summary of the salient points of the 2015 Bronx cases. This seems appropriate to me. I've just redirected 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks to Legionnaires' disease#History. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly. I want to thank you for the diligent work on the article. Thanks for the helpful advice. I'm so grateful. It's a learning curve. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

'Learning curve'? You learned the art of currying favour] pretty quickly Peter Damian (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I spent today working over two of these articles, Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (that is a permalink, prior to the redirect with now goes here: Nitrogen_dioxide#Toxicity) and I just finished completely rewriting Chlorine gas poisoning (prior version is here). Am just starting to work on Beryllium poisoning (permalink). These articles were/are The two articles I cleaned were each a disaster, and I am not being hyperbolic. Whatever else happens here, I would like there to be an indefinite topic-ban from anything related to health for Wikicology. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

  AFAICT, Wikicology has never edited the Beryllium poisoning article. Choess (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had finished cleaning up the other two and had not started the beryllium article when I wrote that. Yes, the Beryllium article was not even close as bad as the other two. Thanks for pointing out that it was not part of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could say how you intend to fix these issues. I see there are issues with image uploads too. [161] I randomly checked a few sentences in your Igogo festival, and the sources did not seem to support them (from "Following the King's visitation" to "end of the festival for that year").

We all make mistakes. Fixing them is important, as is reflecting on why they happened so that you can put personal processes in place to avoid them in future. The more we see of you doing that, the less of an issue this will be. In the meantime, I agree with Jytdog that you should avoid anything health-related, and I would add to that no COI editing. Perhaps if you can agree to that, no formal topic ban would be needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin, I strongly agree to this. In the interim, I will focus on general cleanup on the articles and images. If I need any assistance, I will contact you or any other experienced editor. I will start doing this by next week. See this bizarre request by Peter.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikicology you have not offered any explanation as to why you are creating all this bad content and continuing to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. You need to offer an explanation. I for one don't trust you to clean up as you have not shown any indication that you understand what you have done wrong. Jytdog (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understood what I did wrong. I have no negative intention. Just as User:SlimVirgin said, there are instances where the sources I provided do not support claims in the medical-related topics that was pointed out. There are also instances, where I wrongly copied text from other articles in the medical related topics without attribution. That won't repeat itself again. My non-medical related articles are fine but I will still double-check for any problem. I may also invite people to review again after the cleanup. I never know that writing about myself will be a major problem but now that I know, I have requested the article deletion and it has been deleted. I won't go back to this again. I will refrain from medical-related topics and other controversial topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, you have not addressed fully the issue above (see the mention of the article Igogo festival). It's not just your medical editing/articles which are problematical. Your other articles are full of fake references as well. You have written several hundred Wikipedia articles. Are they all full of fake references and fabricated information? Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry for this extremely slow response. It's a stressful day for me. I will like to say that my articles are not full of fake references. The ones that was pointed as was due to impatience. My Nigeria-related articles doesn't really have a major problem. Igogo festival once featured on DYK and if there is going to be a problem, it's certainly not going to be a major one. Almost all articles on Wikipedia have one problems or the other. No article is perfect, even some of our featured articles. Accuracy is a general problem on Wikipedia. If we should start digging up people's article, we will surely have something to raise concerns about. Like I earlier said, by next week, I will go over the articles again to check for problems even the ones that featured on DYK. Sincerely, this is really a difficult time for me. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the comments above by Softlavender. The valid concerns raised above about fake references, poor quality editing on medical articles, and unreliable sourcing standards, are most disturbing. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikicology, it would help if you could explain how these things have happened. I've noticed that you create a lot of articles in one edit; for example, this is the first revision of Igogo festival. So, first question: are you preparing them elsewhere and pasting them in? Second question: can you say something about how you find and choose sources? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you. Its just like a dream. I can still not understand how I unintentionally created those mess. Maybe I was impatience! Per your question; I often write the contents with sources as a draft outside mainspace (or sandbox), then paste it on mainspace. I usually don't use sandbox. I search for sources online and I choose sources based on their reliability and relevance. I create a lots of articles on a daily basis. Sincerely, I unintentionally messed up on those medical-related topics. I will refrain from medical related-topics for years. Please advice. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you thought a novel was reliable and relevant as a source for an article? That content was also completely unsupported by the source as well. I'm afraid that the more we look into your edits, the more problems we find and that it is evidently not restricted to those medical articles. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, if indeed as you say, you can still not understand how you unintentionally created this mess, could it be that your account is used by other people, with or without your being aware of it? Some kind of team perhaps? That might explain some things. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DVdm, I don't share my account with anyone. I don't share my device with any of my team member and I rarely login my account in other device. I've decided to do something. By next week, I will pick the articles I've created one-by-one to fix any problem I found. I will triple check the sources, then invite one or two experienced editors to review them again. I was probably too hasty or impatient to double check some of my articles. I feel remorseful about this brothers. Thank you so much. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler explanation is that, to achieve credibility and recognition on Wikipedia, you needed to create a substantial number of long articles with diverse sources. This (as I know) is difficult and takes a long time. A simpler way, as long as you are not found out, is to take the structure of a different article, say on Beryllium poisoning, then add random references that appear to reflect the new subject, and lo you have an article on Nitrogen Dioxide poisoning. And of course, yet again, you are lying to us. You "unintentionally created those mess"? My foot. Perhaps you can also explain how here you protest your innocence, saying that 'olatunde olalekan' and 'Olatunde Isaac' are two different people. Is that true? Are they different people? If not, was your error 'unintentional'? How? Again, the simplest explanation is that you were telling us a fat, whopping great lie. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, and in the same place you protest that you "promise to learn more about editting so that the same mistake will not repeat itself." You are making the same sorts of promises here again. What assurance do we have that you will keep your promises, given that you didn't before? Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter, one thing I haven't understood is how Beryllium poisoning fits in. Wikicology hasn't edited it. Did he copy parts of it to another article, and if so can you give an example? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see my notes page here and look at the examples. E.g. the old Beryllium poisoning article reads "persistent dry cough. It can result in anorexia, weight loss, and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases.", his NO2 article read "persistent dry cough, all of which may result in weight loss, anorexia and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases." He then references it to "Sources and concentrations of indoor nitrogen dioxide in Barcelona, Spain", which is quite comical. Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

He has obviously been doing this for a long time. See e.g. here. What is the connection between the completion of a church, and Matthew chapter 2? Written while socking, but my guess is that he quickly learned that Wikipedians rarely check that the source supports the content. After all, that edit stuck for years, and is still there. Realising that he could manufacture seemingly well-sourced articles and thereby gain a rep on Wikipedia, he gave up socking in order to build the rep up, so successfully that he now represents WMF as 'the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria'. It's actually pretty impressive. Peter Damian (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology, can you clarify some of this? For example, did you copy words from Beryllium poisoning to Nitrogen dioxide poisoning? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember doing that. The truth is, most of these gas poisoning have similar symptoms but if the sources I provided does not support it, then its still a mess. I admit my errors on these topics and I will stay off-clear from topics like this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet other articles?

I have just found this, an apparently well-sourced article where the sources are apparent only. I haven't had time to check out comprehensively however. Supper time now, will look tomorrow, any help is welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• As already mentioned at User talk:RHaworth, a recent example. This was just the first randomly picked recent contribution that I checked and just reverted, so there's probably a lot more, likely far too much to be checked by even a handful of people.
• Second random check: [162]. Removed unsourced red links [163]. - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeating the diff, that self-referencing/COI edit you reverted was made by Wikicology just on March 2, 2016. That is very recent. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my action is fine in the example {U|Dvdm}} pointed out. Yes, I removed the external link because the link is already on the infobox. In this edit, and this one you pointed out, my edit is also fine. Firstly, I created Olu Aboluwoye and I nominated it for deletion myself through WP:AfD. The article was deleted but still appear on the list of notable faculty member on the Adekunle Ajasin University article. Dvdm and Jytdog, should "Olu Aboluwoye" remain on the list? The removal of other non-notable people from the list is also justified.

Per this policy, a person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

• If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.

No reliable sources to established the subject notability and no indication that the people met the above requirement. Hence their removal. Please don't see my comment as argumentative. I'm only trying to explain the reasons for my action. There are lots to learn here and no one is perfect. I will address all the concern raised and there is no doubt that I've learn from my mistakes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(fixed indentation, no further comment) - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not an article, but an i.m.o. disturbing comment in user Widr's last week's RFA: [164]. Quoting:

  I wouldn't recommend blocking, unless it is a last resort. Ritchie333 is correct that anyone can revert "poop" from an article, but these so-called vandal fighters never seem to notice the stuff that really matters and this is worrisome.

  Given what we have here, I think that Wikicology pointing to this is very worrisome. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What I simply implied was that vandal fighters are doing some great work but should be careful with using the block button. Some editors, especially newbies sometimes unintentionally vandalize Wikipedia and they only need someone to explain what count as vandalism to them not to immediately block them. Please, don't quote me out of context. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I quoted this specially because of the context. - DVdm (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible for newbies to "unintentionally vandalise" because vandalism means that edits are not made in good faith. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The number, type, and scope of these issues is alarming

Forgive the subthread, but we are talking about all of this so casually we might as well be talking about the lovely weather. In fact, we are talking about a number of extremely major issues, any one of which would get a person indef blocked or banned:

• Creating seven different Wikipedia articles about himself (and then attempting to backpedal by blatantly lying and saying they are two different people -- who merely happen to have the exact same first and middle name)
• Multiple instances of inserting potentially dangerous medical misinformation into Wikipedia articles
• Fake references, links to nonexisting webpages or webpages not mentioning the subject, sources that contradict what they are supposedly substantiating
• Copyright violations
• Legal threat
• Sockpuppetry [165]

... and whatever else I may have missed. This is looking even worse than the Wifione case to me. Why isn't this at ArbCom already, and/or why isn't a site ban being proposed? Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would be punitive overkill and can actually encourage creation of puppets by some. As long as the old behavior is no longer repeated and there is evidence of recent editing being productive, I think ArbCom can best decide if recent behavior is better or worse than that of three years ago and whether or not a WP:CLEANSTART can be officially allowed and condoned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I welcome the neutral eyes of ArbCom and thus "officially" request a recognition and approval of a CLEANSTART by ArbCom,.. mostly because I wish to improve Nigerian topics and some editors choosing to continually revisit my newcomer mistakes is not productive. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Past errors may be forgiven just so long as you accede to whatever they decide. Not obeying could result in a long-term block or ban. Even our filing User:Peter Damian knows that this sort of fairness can work. [166][167] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yeow. So my thought is that a cleanstart isn't really merited if these are, indeed, old problems/newbie mistakes. If that's all they are, let's fix them now. Someone who has made mistakes in the past and owns up to them is extremely valuable, provided they make a concerted effort towards improving. If the problem is harassment on the basis of those old problems/newbie mistakes, then the gavel should fall against the person doing the harassment. I'm not arguing that there is harassment, but so long as it's on-wiki and not pervasive, I think it has the potential to do a great deal of reputational harm both to Wikicology and to the project to give the appearance that one of our most prominent Nigerian editors has been cast out for those mistakes. On the other hand, if there's ongoing disruption and serious problems with Wikicology's editing, then a cleanstart is not merited because it'd permit him to just walk away from damage and conceal future problems from whatever cleanstart account Wikicology is granted.
  In short, no matter what the facts are, I don't think the conclusion would be to authorize a clean start. Rather, I would suggest that what we need is factfinding and conclusions drawn as to whether Wikicology's recent editing behavior is disruptive or damaging, and if so what (if any) sanctions should lie to prevent further disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that declaring oneself to be a sockpuppet is generally not considered a newbie mistake... even if it did happen just under 2 years ago. Considering the timing of claim, master account's name, and what all the accounts did—persistently create articles about Olatunde Isaac, as well as AfC drafts, and uploading files—it's a credible claim. I believe Wikicology has some difficult questions to answer, and those questions are not going to end with this ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a newbie mistake to try to create Olatunde Isaac, multiple times when the topic was clearly not a notable one. Experienced editor will never commit such blunder (please, don't see my comment as argumentative). It's recent recreation by me is never a mistake but a misunderstanding of the COI Policy. I never imagine that it will create a serious problem. Like I said I did consulted Nikki Maria and Michael. I was advised to write it in my sandbox if there are sources that will establish notability. I did and Michael moved it to main space on my request. If I had been discouraged, of course I wouldn't have recreated it. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics, in the interim. In addition, the topic Olatunde Isaac should be salted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• These aren't newcomer mistakes. His latest of his seven articles on himself was created just this month. He is still creating havoc. He has created 550 articles, all of which will have to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb for fake references and false information. He should not be in a position of leadership, and his Wikimedia page should be removed. He is on some sort of strange and misleading trip, in my view, exemplified for instance by his RfA five months ago: [168]. A site ban would not be punitive, it would be preventive, the same as with Wifione. I believe the case deserves a full and thorough review by ArbCom -- not to approve a so-called fresh start, but to assess how deep the level of falsehood and problematical editing goes, and in view of a possible site ban. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothere. Why is this ed still allowed on the project? -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I never knew it will be a bad idea to write about myself again. I felt I could write it neutrally and declare the WP:COI. I admitted that I was wrong for doing this and I feel remorseful. This won't repeat itself again. I felt it was deleted and my attempt to recreate it then was considered disruptive because it was a clear non-notable topic. Actually, here is no policy that state that editors should declare their identity on Wikipedia. Like I said earlier, I may decided to call myself a "Fisherman" or a "Lawyer" it doesn't mean they are true since there is no reliable sources that supported such claim and identity disclosure is never a requirement to contribute to Wikipedia. Now that community feels it is proper to be truthful about this especially when I'm now becoming the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, I will officially forward the documentation of my credential and profession to the WMF and if anyone wish to be copied, I will be more than glad to put them in copy of my email. There after, I will immediately make changes to my userpages. I however seek for community forgiveness never to repeat things like this. In fact, I will restrict my edits to Nigeria-related topics. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia in Nigeria. Omg. Where is the banhammer? -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a site ban is called for, as I think this used could be helpful in other areas. However I don't think they should be writing about themselves. If they truly justify an article then there should be other people who can write about it. While COI editing is technically allowed here, I think in this case the community may want to consider disallowing it. HighInBC 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea, as long as we're here, set up a topic ban for Wikicology with respect to himself in all content spaces (i.e., he can still talk about himself in project and userspace, just not in articles, files, categories, templates for use in mainspace, etc.), as well as any publications to which he has contributed. That topic ban should be indefinite, given we're already ~3 years into this (including the previous accounts). I don't think we should accept a voluntary agreement to not do it, unless it's formalized as a topic ban. This would not be the resolution of this situation, but merely so we can pare down the topics of discussion, whether for here or for ArbCom. Again, this is not intended to foreclose a siteban discussion or ArbCom filing, just to hone the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Wikicology is at least trying to present himself as a Wikipedia representative, and actively trying to become the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria, and as such it's absolutely shocking that he seems to have no knowledge of even basic Wikipedia policy, and doesn't even by himself understand basic principles of neutrality. At the very least he should remove his self-aggrandizing autobiography from his User-page and stop trying to put himself forwards as some sort of Wikipedia expert. If he doesn't do that, I would support a ban to show that this guy most certainly does not represent Wikipedia in any way.

I also wonder if these kinds of pages are common and accepted: Wikipedia:Yabatech_Wikipedia_Education_Program_Seminar, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Workshop for Students of Fountain University. I've never seen anything like that. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I blanked my user page Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think pages like that, documenting past outreach projects and workshops are not unusual, but in recent years have been much more commonly kept over at meta. I do want to comment, though, that Wikicology evidently has done a lot in terms of outreach and workshops. For instance, he's one of the proposers/coordinators of an upcoming Foundation-funded project to create photographic content of Nigeria, and is a member of the Individual Engagement Grants committee. I'm not saying that should be an endorsement or make him immune to oversight for acts or omissions over here, but if he is positively contributing in other ways a siteban might serve to hamstring support for getting future projects rolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that at Wikicology's recent Request for Adminship Davidcannon told Wikipedians Wikicology was a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University. Searching the university' website for his name yields nothing, and he is not on the staff list. In this context I note this edit from earlier this month, in which Wikicology (1) added himself as the only notable alumnus of the university and (2) deleted the external link to the university's official site (the link was also present in the infobox, but malformed and not clickable). --Andreas JN466 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Henceforth:

• I will never edit content about myself again
• I will never use another account other than this one
• I will appropriately paraphrase all content and
• only use high quality secondary sources going forwards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: if henceforth you will indeed never use another account other than this one, would you please provide a full list of the accounts that you have recently (and since 3 June 2014) used? I think that would be helpful. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and advise so far. Sincerely, I do not have any other account. This is the only account I'm using since June 3, 2014. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And how do we know you are telling the truth, given that here you said "I don't know If any of the above suspects of sockpuppet also uses the same browsing center because its not my juridition to be monitoring anybody that visit the same computer center so I wouldn't know if any one is using the same Ip to abuse wikipedia. Although I appear more like a new user.Am not realy a new user I once have an account on wikipedia but I lost the diary that contain the pin and username. That's why I created a new one you see as “sixtyn”. Esteem wikipedian,let's not punish the inoccent ones for what they knows nothing about. " Peter Damian (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

AND AGAIN: 1 Dec 2013. "The seeming sources that were actually to wikipedia articles that did not support the content gave a false air of significance to the subject. I would strongly recommend against doing that again. Wikipedia articles may not be used to source articles. " How can he plausibly claim that this was an accident or a mystery or a dream, given that this has been his mode of operation for well over 2 years? Peter Damian (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian stop being hostile with me. An editor has warn you here and another editor raised similar concern about your behavior on my talk page. This is not a battle ground and Wikipedia is not about winning. If everyone behaves like this then you won't have been allowed to continue editing here, considering your past behavior. I learn that you yourself were blocked multiple times and the last was an indef-blocked for maybe 5 years. So you sure ain't perfect. I wonder what socks you used during those many years. one has to wonder why this guy does not believe in clean start. Heck he was at one time even banned. you were banned from editing for using multiple sock puppets. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian. It was reversed after you appealed to ArbCom. Now tell me, considering your disruptive behavior, are you not suppose to be site ban yourself? And you're here asking people to stone a sinner (seeking for forgiveness) to death when you yourself is the most sinful person. I don't expect people like you to be giving advise on sockpuppetry-related issue as a MASTER of SOCKPUPPETRY. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This sort of counterattack doesn't help your cause, Wikicology, given how many editors have verified and endorsed Peter Damian's concerns above. Drop it. Andreas JN466 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

This is an open comment for everyone; Chill out. It's as if some of you are out for blood. Sure, Wikicology has created somewhat of a mess, but it doesn't seem as if he did so with any malice or intent to harm. Wikipedia is a massive, complex beast and not easiest thing to learn quickly (especially if English is not your primary language). I think that Wikicology's involvement with the WMF and certainly his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn. Asking for blocks and bans and whatnot will solve nothing. I think if we ask Wikicology to voluntarily stop creating articles or adding content for now, until he can demonstrate a competence for doing so and a sound knowledge of the editing guidelines, will suffice. In the meantime, allow him to help with the clean-up, it would be a good learning experience. Perhaps some mentoring would help as well... - ^theWOLFchild 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

" ... his participation and attitude here at ANI speaks volumes. He's knows he's made mistakes, he knows they need to be cleaned up and that he has a lot to learn." He's learned how to speak sweetly and make promises which he does not keep. Aside from his COI, constant self-promotion, lies about who he is and his employment/profession (see Andreas's revelations above), copyright violations, and dangerous medical misinformation, he has created 550 articles which are likely full of the same fake references and false information that all of the ones we have examined so far are. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious concerns with this editors contribs. Dialing back at this time just isn't an option, not merely because of the seriousness of the claims, but the positions of trust Wikicology has attained both here and in the grant-awarding bodies on meta. In determining whether Wikicology has done wrong we need to clear it up publicly and transparently. In my view the most serious claim here is becoming falsified research and credentials: If it's true, then the Foundation appears to have bankrolled some of this editor's activities through grant disbursals. If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria. It's a really serious situation that needs to be handled carefully. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned whether some of the 550 articles he has written are COI/paid, especially those concerning people or organizations in his home country. He has created an average of approximately one article per day (hard to tell the full number since deleted articles don't always show up on the X!'s tools) since he started editing, which in itself is odd in my view, particularly since many of them are quite large and have quite a large number of 'citations'. In terms of "If false, then continuing to pursue this looks like it will severely damage the Wikipedia movement in Nigeria", I disagree. The whole thing has to be rooted out from the bottom up. It would be scandalous not to investigate this. Softlavender (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC); edited 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As others have said above, an ArbCom case may be the best venue for such an investigation, given the amount of material that has to be critically examined, and the fact that some of it is no longer even visible to non-admins. It's too much for AN/I to handle. Andreas JN466 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. This is beyond ANI's ability to review at this point. @Softlavender: I actually wholeheartedly agree with you, that it would be scandalous to fail to review this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment:: Initially, I decided to be silent about my employment status and credentials but I have decided to break silence about series of accusation of falsified credentials. First of all, I never in anyway falsified my credentials and it is quiet unfortunate that people keep accusing me of this here. I'm a biochemist just as I had stated in my userpage and anywhere you can find it. I once lectured at "Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but not directly employed by the University (not a formal employment). I did this for few months before my current employment. Currently, I work as a medical lab scientist at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service", here in Lagos, Nigeria. I was employed there before my National Youth Service Program and I returned to the organization after the program. The fact that my former work at the annex is informal is why you can't find my name on the university staff list and no media have ever described me as ACADEMIC neither have I stated it anywhere outside Wikipedia that I'm an academic. Wikipedia is informal, thus I can include informal information/activities on my userpage. If the WMF had formally requested for my personal information/credentials, there is no way I can include my work at the annex. To avoid any doubt, I am more than ready to forward my Certificates to the WMF with my professional employment status, to clear every doubt. If anyone his interested, I will Cced you. I recently blanked my userpage because I felt personal information is not even necessary in the first place. I'm sad to seeing all these accusations. Why would anyone call me a liar and accused me of falsified credential when I have not presented any formal documents that contradicted what is on my userpage? This is disheartening!!! Even when Olatunde Isaac was created, did I went ahead to include this on the list of academics? Did all the reliable sources in the article refers to me as academic?. If you must accuse people of falsified credential on the basis of what you see on their userpage, why have you not been accusing those that include series of things like "This user is a medical doctor" This user is a chemist" in sandboxes on their userpage. Take this case to Abcom, they know how to best handle this. All the accusers too will be mentioned, they would have to provide all the necessary documents to back their accusation. If any of the accusers refuse to take this to Abcom, I'm going to take this to Abcom myself. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not directly employed by the University? Then how do explain this photo of you labeled "Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria" [169] (which retained that caption until 31 October 2015, the day after you withdrew your failed RfA)? -- Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I not suppose to describe my image? Yes the caption is suppose to be " Wikicology in his office at Adekunle Ajasin University Annex" but I never really took the photo serious. In fact, that wasn't really my personal office, I have no personal office there. When I took the photo, someone told me it was fine. He said "Isaac, this photo is fine, it looks as if you're in your personal office" that's why I used the caption." I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption. I'm not the photo-loving type that's why it was there for long and when I got a better one I removed it. Is there any problem with that? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is your continued misrepresentation of yourself and your continued self-promotion for your own advancement. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• More fun with self-created Wikipedia articles on himself:

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created two times
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created four times
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created 2 March 2016 and deleted at creator's request three days ago after this ANI was filed

That makes a total of 14 times he has posted articles on himself on Wikipedia article space. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how this is relevant here again. This had been already noted above. Yes, I created the article 13 times as a newbie (with socks) when the topic was clearly not notable and the accounts I used to recreate it were blocked. It's recreation is as a result of the significant of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Just as I had said earlier, I never put it directly on the mainspace. Michael Q. Schmidt moved it to mainspace. Now that it has generated a lots of heating reaction, I requested for it to be speedily deleted and have also requested that it should be SALTED which is a good step. I've been advised above not to write about myself again by several editors. I have agreed. What else do you want? Are you just interested in Drama? If that's your aim then you are not helping this discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Creating 13 articles on yourself over a period of more than six months cannot be attributed to "newbie"-ism: it is sheer dogged policy-violating self-promotionalism beyond all reasonable assumptions of good faith. And the one you created this month is the same thing -- do not persist in trying to cover your tracks by claiming someone else put it on mainspace; you wrote the article with the intention of putting it on mainspace to promote yourself, as you have a lengthy history of doing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Unless you believe editors here somehow did not look at or read the opening of this ANI, repeating that list of failures again simply makes a long discussion even longer. And pardon, but most of these poorly written beginner errors happened three years ago and, while definitely showing lack of editorial experience, I cannot see them as recent events intended to disrupt or defraud. Unstated above is that the repeatedly A7 speedied efforts Olatunde olalekan isaac, Olatunde Olalekan Isaac, Olatunde O Isaac, Olatunde isaac, and Olatunde olalekan all occurred during the last quarter of 2013, Olatunde isaac O happened in April 2014, and the last effort Olatunde Isaac did not happen until two years later. And it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins (through multiple explanations) to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article. Perhaps someone might wish to WP:ADOPT and counsel? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you've failed to notice that I posted exactly how many times each article was re-created, meaning that he created articles on himself not merely 7 times, but 14 times -- double the number mentioned in the OP. And the earliest ones occurred from 26 August 2013 through 22 April 2014, so that's 2 to 2.5 years ago (not three), and the latest one was just this month. The reason he requested the deletion of that recent one is to cover his tracks, as people were discovering even more discrepancies and falsehoods in it. It's clear to me from all of the conversations I have read concerning this entire affair that he has been misrepresenting himself, and his employment/occupation, on Wikipedia for quite some time, and that moreover he has used Wikipedia and his activities here to boost his own notability, and therefore in a kind of feedback loop his self-representation (or misrepresentation), hat-collecting, mass article generation, and ladder-climbing somehow garnered him enough notability for his own Wikipedia article -- an article he quickly got deleted so we could not peruse it. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, one thing I don't understand is why you moved the most recent bio into mainspace on 2 March, just over three hours after he created it. The notability issue was obvious, you knew that he had written it, and several sources were identical (and seemed to have been based on press releases, possibly written by the subject). Yet here you say "it is to the ultimate good that Wikicology finally begins ... to understand the criteria of WP:BIO, and has himself removed the failed article." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look through a few more articles to see if this was as widespread an issue as it seems. At Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi, awards given to other people were credited to the article subject (fixed), and other statements were unsourced. At Friday Okonofua large parts of his career section were cited to unrelated sources that only mention him or were scientific papers authored by him, and I just removed a whole load else that was not backed up at all by the cited sources. I share the concerns of the users above about the quality of the articles created by Wikicology. Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A search for *.newspunch.org, the site Wikicology used for his own recent bio at User:Wikicology revealed article Iyabo Ojo, created by Wikicology on 1 April 2015 ([170]). Since then it was maintained by others: [171]. Current situation:

• ref 1: "error 404"
• ref 2: "sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist"
• ref 3: says nothing about "director and producer"
• ref 4: not found
• ref 5: not found
• ref 6: not found
• ref 7: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 8: says nothing about the sentence to which it is attached
• ref 9: backs the last part of the sentence in the text
• ref 10: backs the scripting part of the sentence in the text
• ref 11: "error 404"
• ref 12: backs the name of a film

How does one go about putting this straight? - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Give him some novel type of topic ban? No creation of new articles, no addition of new content, until he has revisited all his articles and either corrected the sources or removed the unsourced or porly sourced information. He has been creating problems for years now, and it is clear that it was ongoing until this ANI discussion started. He should also cease all activities as a public face of Wikipedia, as this really isn't the kind of image we want to have. Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, I was not talking about putting him straight here, if that is possible. I was referring to the article. - DVdm (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since the First Stable Version of Wikicology's User Page name-drops administrator RHaworth as a "mentor," I would be very much interested in their views of the current case. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I just looked at this interview, linked in the latest incarnation of his autobiography. In it, he discusses Yoruba tribal marks: "for example, when I wrote an article entitled "Yoruba Tribal marks", I got a sense of accomplishment from knowing that over 5 million people would read it." (which, at some 1,000 pageviews a month, would take some 300 years to achieve; if you really did say that to the interviewer, then again I'ld much prefer that you no longer presented yourself as the face of the Nigerian Wikipedians).

Sure enough, that article has the exact same problems as those discussed above. I checked the "Pele" section. The first source[172] doesn't mention "pele" at all. The second source[173] mentions Pele, but doesn't support anything it supposedly references. Source 8 doesn't support the sentence it references. And so on. The final sentence, about president Obasanjo, is probably a reference to the source from the preceding sentence[174], but that source makes it clear that it was his father that had the marks, not the President. Basically, the whole paragraph should be removed and rewritten from scratch. I note that this article was on DYK as well...

Please, whether it is a complete block or a severe topic ban like I described above, something drastic needs to be done in any case. Way too much damage has been done already, and every article he wrote or significantly contributed to needs a thorough recheck (or being moved to userspace or draft space perhaps). Fram (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that we should move toward a decision. Several editors have spot-checked his articles. The sources are about the topic, but only generally so; they regularly don't support the content. I keep hoping that Wikicology will commit to fixing the articles, but the issue now is whether anyone would even want that. A ban from mainspace therefore seems inevitable. The question becomes whether it should extend to a total community ban, or whether we should hand it over to the ArbCom. I can't see the ArbCom reaching a different decision, mind you. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose a site ban at this time. I propose that, for one year, that the editor's main space work be limited to cleaning up and improving the articles that they have created. I think the editor understands that this would be their last chance. I am willing to mentor the editor, and I think they would benefit from more than one mentor. I think that there is a possibility that this editor can be transformed into an asset to this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I might have supported that until a few hours ago. But having seen Wikicology's recent posts about how it didn't matter that his photograph caption was untrue (the one of him in his office at the university, even though he has never had an office there), and how it didn't matter that he claimed to be an academic because he had only ever made that claim on Wikipedia (including in his mainspace bio), I now wonder whether there is a fundamental disconnect. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• A site ban would make concerted improvement of the hundreds of articles he has created very unlikely. I say give him a year to clean up his messes and re-evaluate then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Asking him to clean up his articles makes sense, but is he both able and willing? I asked him today about an unsourced claim in an article of his (see Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria#Source request). He replied that it was an older article he had written 18 months ago, and he supplied a link to a source for the claim. [175] But the source he supplied had simply copied the relevant portion of the Wikipedia article word for word. So he still seems to have difficulty identifying reliable sources (but he is teaching people how to edit on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation).

You've offered to be a mentor, but are you prepared for that amount of work? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made the offer and I think that I have a well-established record of helping editors and getting them on track. I promise you that I will not tolerate any more misbehavior. If I see any, I will be right here at ANI reporting that mentorship did not work in this case. I hope one or two other experienced editors will help as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jim, mentorship is only useful to those who seriously seek it and attempt to abide by it. This user's very first edits referenced "mentor" RHaworth. Let's hear from them before we get carried away with saving a misrepresenter, a sock puppeteer, a serial (14-times!) COI autobiography creator, source misuser, etc. etc. etc. who has attempted to get into the WMF funding cookie jar on multiple occasions with mixed success to head various projects. Don't dive in front of a runaway school bus being driven by someone who does not belong behind the wheel with offers to help lend them pointers how to parallel park. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

After digging into edit history for 45 minutes this morning, I am seeing a good deal of good faith work; mentorship might be the right solution here rather than the chopping block. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: -- Many thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion. I lack words to say thank you but for better choice of words THANK YOU. Am so grateful. However, I will impose a 1 year topic ban on myself with regards to creating any new articles, and will focus on cleaning up the articles i created, and will do exactly as SlimVirgin suggested regarding citations to quality sources. After I finish correcting each article, I will be diligent in having experienced editors such as HighInBC and SlimVirgin review them, to make sure they meet expectations. I plea to the community to please give me another chance. I've accepted the mentorship by Cullen328 and will work diligently to correct the mistakes I made in the articles I created, if allowed to do so, and will source everything properly and not make those same mistakes again. I will work diligently to fix the mess I made in an effort to re-establish trust from the community and if I stray from that after my probationary period, I will quietly accept the community's decision. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Sep 2014

This ANI from September 2014 says it all. A variety of users express concern about issues identical to those raised here. (Except they weren't aware of the earlier socking). E.g compentence ('the trail of destruction this editor seems intent on leaving in their wake'), the lecturing, biting back at criticism, frequent copyright violation, weird excuses for the copyvio, including browser malfunction that caused an accidential paste from the clipboard. Generally, the complete inability or refusal to understand what they were doing wrong. DGG warns of an indef but fails to carry out, postdlf proposes a site ban, or at least an indef. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

It is apparently clear that I've demonstrated a certain level of incompetence which led to series of problems. The truth is, I'm just too excessively enthusiastic as a young man who is ready to learn. I never have any intention to harm the project and all have done so far is in good faith. I therefore humbly request a CLEAN START and someone to ADOPT me and I won't create or add any content to mainspace until they can attest that I'm experienced enough to do so. Also the page Olatunde Isaac should be salted. I believe, this will be more productive than indef block. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk explaining why clean start wouldn't work. You've had too many accounts, all with the same issues. Wikipedia:Clean start does not allow clean starts for:

Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny ...

I also noted on your talk that you've suggested moving articles you wrote out of mainspace. But as others have edited them, that wouldn't be appropriate, so please don't make any page moves. What you should do instead is start removing unsourced material from them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposal - indef block

The lengthy ANI thread from 2014, linked above, shows that all these same sorts of promises and excuses we are seeing now from User:Wikicology, have all been seen before, nearly two years ago. And the difference is not a lot. There is no need for an arbcom case. There is also no need for burning more community time on this. Hundreds of very problematic articles have been created over a very long time period.

Proposal is for an indefinite block of User:Wikicology from the English Wikipedia, while recognising that he may be much better able to contribute to Wikipedias in languages in which he is more fluent. And also recognising his hard work and great efforts to help the Wikipedia movement.

• Support as proposer. MPS1992 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Wikicology can appeal to UTRS when their English has improved significantly. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wtf does their English has to do with this? Whatever can be said about Wikicology their English proficiency is not the problem - many users get along fine with much less English. Also Nigerian English is its own variety and should be respected as such.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Too long. Would support a block community ban with permission to appeal in one year. Would also support a mentorship agreement under which Wikicology is topic banned from mainspace for a year, but during which they can work on repairing their articles in their sandbox, under supervision. This would require the mentor to take responsibility for content when it is posted to mainspace after cleanup. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I apologise, perhaps my proposal was not well worded. An indefinite block can be appealed any time. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now starting to think that Maunus' idea of a community ban (thank you for clarifying that) may be better. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here we have a user who fabricates references; misrepresents his credentials to improve his on-wiki image, and thinks little of it; plagiarises from Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia sources; makes thinly veiled legal threats; has used WP for self-promotion; clearly lacks competence in several areas, including ideas of reliable sourcing; and even if you forgive all of that, cannot, as far as I can see, be trusted to fix his mistakes. While Cullen's offer shows generosity and faith, I do not believe the extra effort spent on monitoring Wikicology's contributions and mentoring him, with a level of scrutiny commensurate to the seriousness of these issues, is justified over and above the effort it will take to fix the mess already made. Support an indefinite block, but prefer a community ban. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• I encourage respondents who support the proposal, to also mention if they would prefer, or countenance, a community ban. MPS1992 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A far better outcome for the encyclopedia is to require this editor to spend one year cleaning up and improving the hundreds of articles they have created, under a mentorship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you offer to present a summary of the cleanup work accomplished under your mentorship to this forum after the one year has elapsed? If the problem articles have not been sensibly cleaned by Wikicology, do you undertake to complete that task yourself? For all articles he has edited under all of his accounts, known now or admitted or found later? MPS1992 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • MPS1992, yes, I commit to reporting back here in one year. I do not commit to cleaning up every single one of some 500 articles if the mentorship fails. I will read all of them, identify and tag the most glaring problems, and prioritize the cleanup efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Jim, a year is a long time. As we've seen, the community's memory is short: if it hadn't been for Peter Damian's diligence, nobody here would have remembered the previous AN/I discussion. Would you consider providing an interim report to those who commented here – say, in two weeks' time, while everybody still remembers this discussion – to indicate whether the clean-up and mentoring effort appears to be working? Andreas JN466 02:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, Andreas, if the community does not agree to block or ban this editor, then of course I will report back in two weeks or at any other reasonable interval. As I said earlier, I think that three editors should help mentor Wikicology, so I hope Irondome will reconsider and also assist. On the other hand, if the community reaches consensus that Wikicology should no longer edit here, I will step aside and respect that decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I would be happy to assist in any mentoring plan. I am a strong believer in editor retention, and mentoring is an under - used tool on WP, as an alternative to blocks or bans. My personal experience with mentoring has shown that it is a strong behaviour - modifier, if the mentoree accepts it in GF. Nigerian editors are under - represented on the English'pedia in addition, so I believe mentoring is a good, viable option in this case. Irondome (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I will mentor this editor. And I accept the terms above, although it will put my own nascent projects back a year. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC) See acceptance above by Cullen talk. Irondome (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per the sense that some editors are angry (no, not all) and wish to react punitively toward an apologetic editor they perceive as a "problem". That worry stated, and since the editor has repeatedly told us that he will not repeat editing behaviors found abhorrent, I concur with Cullen328. Let him prove and improve himself under a mentorship. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per BethNaught's comments above. I have no particular issue with people misrepresenting their identity online (and yes, you are patently fabricating your identity, since in this thread you say you're a lab assistant but six months ago you made the explicit statement that "I'm a Biochemist and a university lecturer"), provided it's not done Essjay-style to argue from a supposed position of authority, but fabricating references is an absolute line in the sand as far as I'm concerned. I've no doubt that the people suggesting mentorship above are doing so in good faith, but IMO the concept of mentorship applies to new users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's arcane policies and practices, not to users who've been highly active for years and are well aware of the policies in question, but appear to believe IAR gives them a carte blanche to disregard any policy they feel inconveniences them. Realistically, someone with a two year, 8800-edit history isn't going to suddenly change (particularly someone who considers themself the self-appointed "face of Wikipedia"), and the only alternative to blocking would be a set of restrictions so onerous he would probably prefer a block and a clean break; I'd suggest "no addition of anything to mainspace without having it checked by a neutral third party, and a blanket ban on article creation other than via the WP:AFC process" as an absolute minimum. ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have a serious problem with anyone fabricating credentials, which is not the same thing as fabricating identity. I nearly didn't look any closer at this, given his claim to be a biochemist by occupation, an academic, a 'medical laboratory scientist'. This, together with articles which at first glance seemed impressive, such as Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (now deleted) suggested this person was an authority with complete command of their subject. Fake credentials and faking any kind of authority, are a complete no-no. Peter Damian (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peter Damian, re-read what I wrote; I have no issue with people using fake identities (if you have a long memory, you presumably recall my lobbying for the unblock of Poetlister provided he stopped using multiple accounts), but this is someone apparently faking credentials to give themselves a supposed position of authority. (I say "apparently" because what I know about the structure of Nigerian higher education could be written on a stamp, and it's possible that "lecturer" is a generic term there for "someone employed by a university" in the same way that the meaning of "professor" varies between countries.) That is, someone not a biochemist/attorney/fireman is welcome to claim they are one, but if they do so and don't genuinely have the knowledge they should stay away from biochemistry/legal/fire related articles since their presence on those articles constitutes the inappropriate claim of authority; as far as I'm concerned Essjay could have claimed to be a leading theologian as much as he liked if he'd written on petroleum geology or 1980s sitcoms, rather than on religion and ethics. Note that I'm not defending him, but supporting an indefinite block and proposing that if not blocked, the minimum necessary topic ban would be so onerous as to effectively constitute a permanent ban, since it would create conditions in which it's virtually impossible to work. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Right, that's something that's bothered me as well. Lecturer may indeed have a different meaning in Nigerian academia. But a great deal of Wikicology's time appears to have been spent on puffing up his identity, and not correcting any mistakes that crop up. But I'm going to have to differ with Iridescent in that I can't approve of editors making seriously exaggerated claims about themselves. And while it does fall a bit outside our scope, I think that needs to be especially strongly condemned among editors who seek grant money from the Foundation. I don't have a problem with someone jokingly self-describing as an emperor or the "four-star General of Wikipedia". But calling oneself a doctor or lawyer when it's untrue is different. I'm not saying people should have to prove their claims about themselves, but people shouldn't fabricate credentials or permit convenient false impressions about themselves stand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Agree. Any such claim is implying authority, even if it is not asserted. And you have to ask why an editor is faking credentials in the first place. Surely to convey the impression of authority, and of command of the subject. Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
          • According to this source, it is illegal to work as a lecturer in Nigeria without a PhD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Second choice: Cullen brings up a nice alternative, that we should require a mentorship under which the he'll clean up the mess he's created. But I never see those working. My first preference is to see this at ArbCom (I recognize that an indef block and ArbCom are not mutually exclusive). I think AffCom or some other body over at meta needs to check on Wikicology's activities more broadly, with possible involvement of the Foundation board, to carefully examine the grants that Wikicology has received. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, support Cullen's plan—three mentors/supervisors and a mainspace ban until he's cleaned up the mess he's created to their satisfaction—as my third choice. Should Wikicology retire in that time, I'd want this plan to automatically convert to a siteban. And, as before, I consider the implementation of this plan as something in addition to, rather than substituting for, arbitration and other proceedings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC) (stricken per below)
    • I no longer support Cullen's plan in consideration of all the other problems that are becoming apparent, and given it looks like Wikicology might not stick around anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

*Way too harsh Irondome (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban and stripping of all Wikimedia and WMF posts, etc. Unfortunately, this lengthy ANI thread has actually only scratched the surface of this user's problematical behaviors. If he is not site banned and stripped of WMF posts here, this will need to go to ArbCom, because this entire case, taken as a whole, has remarkable resemblances to the Essjay controversy and to Wifione. "Mentoring" etc. isn't going to cut it -- this user has achieved far too much power already, has engaged in far far too much deception, and the situation is well beyond repair or rehabilitation. I actually think this should go to ArbCom anyway, because much of the evidence can only be viewed by admins at this point. Softlavender (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and count me voting against any appeal in the future, ever (Redacted) Imagine what detractors of Wikipedia will say after seeing all this? How can anyone trust medical articles in Wikipedia anymore? And if this guy is not forever banned from the site, the detractors will say that not only medical articles in Wikipedia are crap, but also Wikipedia administration is complacent with all this bullshit and letting it happen unchecked. Wikipedia is in grave danger and we need to act forcefully to save it. So you want to allow him to clean his own mess? This is like making a baby change his own diapers. Not going to happen. It is very heartwarming to see so many nice people around here. But I am sorry to have to break to you that Santa Claus doesn’t exist and we are not living in Disneyland. Tradedia^talk 08:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let me register my surprise that an editor with a PhD would speak so crudely ("those kind of people", scam, fraudster) and bringing up nationality which is not relevant in this case. Regardless of what happens to Wikicology, his behavior doesn't warrant personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is totally inappropriate. Please stick to the facts, which seem dramatic enough on their own without getting into personal attacks and offensive comparisons/generalizations. I went ahead and redacted the first part of the comment, per WP:TPO. If others feel this is unnecessary and want to restore, please do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block and/or community ban, whichever of these options is more secure (It is not entirely clear to me when I read wp:CBAN.) As I said on my talk page to Peter: I think that our philosophies of assuming good faith, giving multiple "final" warnings and "second" chances, encouraging anonymity, and allowing incompetence, are overall beneficial and obvioulsy have made Wikipedia into what it is. But honest, well-meant—and some naive or alas downright silly—judgement mistakes have been made and will of course always be made. Then it goes wrong. And then it gets put straight again. Or only partly. Or not. ([176]). Mentorship for someone who has been "editing wikipedia anonymously since 2005"? I honestly think that would be another judgement mistake, resulting in another waste of time and effort. - DVdm (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Collapse apparently completely unfounded claim
It is (sadly) amusing to read the second question in the interview you link above "Q: We understand that you have the highest number of articles by a Nigerian on Wikipedia, how were able to achieve that feat?" Real answer: "Well, I just made up stuff and copy/pasted fake refs." Tradediatalk 09:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that in the interview linked. Until you can back up that statement, I'm collapsing it as flatly misleading. (And I do that as someone who pretty much believes that you-know-who should be booted out forthwith.) EEng 00:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until reviewed by Arbcom I have nothing against this editor personally, but there are a number of in-principle issues here that I would like Arbcom to review or to take up. I have asked them just now. The main issues are (1) is it OK to fake credentials or not. (2) Are editors who claim such credentials accountable, i.e. are they obliged to defend their claims. I had a lot of pushback from Wikicology when I politely asked him about this, such as claimed invasion of privacy, harassment etc. Peter Damian (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Serial abuser of the wiki. I have zero confidence in this individual. Zero. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

After 45 minutes exploring edit history, I am seeing enough good faith encyclopedia work to move from Support to Neutral. Pinging Sjones23 who cited my rationale. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Regretfully support ban. Having kept an eye on Wikicology's edits for some time, I had hoped that he would learn the errors of his ways, over time and I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I had been erring towards Cullen's proposal to mentor cleaning up the mess he has created would work, but in this edit today he has yet again added unverifiable information which is in fact closely paraphrasing other sources: There is nothing about wetlands in the source, yet numerous examples of a very similar sentence to be found in other sources. He wrote "356,861 hectares from which 75,755 hectares are wetlands" they say "356,861 hectares of which 75,755 hectares are wetlands". The part on population growth is also not in the source and has instead been lifted from Kwara#Population. He wrote: "constitutes about 6.44% of the Nation's total population having relied upon immigration for Population growth and Socioeconomic development". That article states: "constitutes about 1.69% of the Nation's total population having relied upon immigration for Population growth and Socioeconomic development". This is the final straw for me as it shows he still doesn't understand how to create content is incapable of changing. In combination with the autobiography and calling himself the "face of Wikipedia" I don't think that we have any other option but to ban him. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
  • I'm expanding my rationale on my support vote: This user's disruptiveness and fake references to articles are causing more harm than good, so a block or ban would help minimize the damage to Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Favour mentoring Since going into this in more depth, the situation is far, far worse than I thought. Mentoring I don't believe would work. Having never come across the user before, I am baffled by this editors' behaviour patterns. The community can only support colleagues to a certain limit. AS these issues go back to 2014, I throw up my hands. Irondome (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Would assist in mentoring, and awaiting WF input on my T/P. If we can agree on priorities of issues to be addressed, there may be a way forward. Irondome (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) x2 Oppose - if Cullen is willing to mentor this user to become a more effective contributor and help clean up all his articles, then I think we should give that a try first. If it doesn't work, the situation can always be re-evaluated. - ^theWOLFchild 19:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild Anyone who knows me around here, including you, hopefully would recognise that I always try to see the best in colleagues, and try everything to keep editors on - board. In this case, the sheer breadth of issues from false claims of academic tenure, the WMF connection, the conscious off-wiki publicity seeking, make mentoring problematic. To be a mentor, one has to do a cost - benefit analysis in a sense. It helps if the mentoree can fully accept the issues. That's the baseline. But here we are facing ambiguity. The basic editing issues would appear to be a clear case of WP:CIR. I just think this is beyond a potential save through mentoring. Trust is vital. The community seems to have indicated this has been fatally compromised with regard to this ed in this case. It just baffles me. Irondome (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Irondome Fair enough. But I don't agree with the overall analysis being tossed around here. For example, has he "faked his credentials"...? He's offered to forward to them for verification. That leaves... what? A caption on a photo that say "Wikicology in his office"...? Pfft! Big deal. I can't believe people are making an issue out of that. I'm not denying that Wikicology has created a significant mess here, but give him an opportunity to clean it up. What's the alternative? Ban him and wait for others to do it? (like that'll happen...) Mendaliv has offered some better alternatives above, which include a ban if Wikicology doesn't live up to his end of the bargain (which I support). But give him a chance at least. Also, let me ask you this; If Wikicology isn't banned and goes on to be mentored by Cullen, will you help Cullen out then? - ^theWOLFchild 19:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would help Cullen in any way I could. If we can untangle this shitty shitty mess. I am quite happy to change my vote to something less drastic if we can just unbundle this tangle of issues. I said I never give up on people. It is the sheer range of issues and W's behaviours which are blowing my mind at the mo. But I would appreciate some more relevant input from Wikicology. Just come clean man, and make an authoritative statement. It might even help. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing about Wikicology's appearance of authority is just a bunch of bits and pieces that people, unfortunately, added up to make him out to be something more than he really is. He's said he's a lecturer (he may have given a lecture), he has a picture marked as in his office (he may have had some office space, I know I briefly did in undergrad)... he's said a number of things that people took as more impressive than they really are. But where I see a problem is that when people were clearly taking those things as far too impressive, where was Wikicology? I'd be horrified if my wiki-colleagues were to look at my userboxes and then describe me as a lawyer on that basis. I agree that sometimes little things like that can spin out of control, but Wikicology's silence—evidently being willing for the community's demonstrated misunderstanding of that work to its detriment, in, for example, his RfA nomination—is still disturbing. As many men have learned, a hair here and a hair there before long adds up to a whole head... and Wikicology seemed to have quite the coif at the beginning of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to read this by him, where he concedes he was not 'directly employed' by the university. Softlavender challenged him asking about the picture of the 'office'. Then, bizarrely, he replies saying "Am I not suppose to describe my image?" and that he never took the image seriously, that it wasn't his office at all, and that someone said it was fine because it looked like a personal office. "I have never thought it would misinformed other editors, afterall Wikipedia Userpage is an informal place for volunteers. I apologize if you are misinformed with the caption." It is completely surreal. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opose. While all mentioned allegations reveal serious threats to Wikipedia's and Wikicology's credibility it is a fact that he apologised for all exaggerations of his credentials and all bad quality editing. On the other hand he is doing good work to promote the Open Knowledge movement and the Wiki projects in Nigeria. And we have to understand what it takes to be heard in Nigeria. To be able to talk to functionaries you have to present a picture of some standing. And that's where the story went wrong. He overdid his self-promotion to get recognized. He is still needed in Nigeria to promote and kick start the Yoruba Wikipedia, to promote Wiki Loves Women and to hold the Nigerian Wikipedia community together. I am very sure that he learned from the investigation of all he did in the last days and that he should be given a new chance. Closely watched, off course. --Gereon K. (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If Cullen and Wikicology think he can be saved by mentorship, the wiki won't break in the meantime. If it works then the educational benefits of the project are expanded (not least of all to Wikicology, and whomever he may educate, but also for the international understanding of the Project - we may well need to figure out what it means to effectively communicate in non-North/non-Australian Englishes) -- if it doesn't work, the damage can be remedied, but there is no remedy of any kind if this is passed. We may well have to bar the door one day (given the problems, Wikicology, you are on notice), just not today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm totally not convinced by his "just give me one more chance, this time I mean it, even after all those other times you gave me one more chance" rhetoric, and I think the damage to the project detailed above is so severe and pervasive and that Wikicology shows so little evidence of being able to recognize and clean up the problems that putting him on probation until the mess is fixed will be counterproductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and delete all contributions. This user seems to have done enormous harm to Wikipedia. Worse, we now have hundreds of articles that appear to be fake, at least partially. A small number of his claims have been checked, and none of the checked claims hold. That makes it very likely all, or at least a great deal, of the other articles created or edited by the user contain similar misinformation. Banning the user should be obvious. In addition, I'd say it's absolutely essential that the user's edit be undone, and created articles deleted, as they risk seriously undermining the credibility of the project. Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are significant problems here, but nothing that can't be cleaned up. There is a big problem with 404/dead link refs. We need consensus to go through the articles/edits and remove all 404/dead link references I think, with other removals of inserted text at editor discretion. Probably we should also consider some group AfDs.

However there is need for properly sourced work to be done on Yoruba subjects. If Wikicology can contribute to this, it would be a step in the right direction.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

• Rich, I just spent a couple of hours at Talk:Child sexual abuse in Nigeria. I am not sure you fully appreciate the scale of the clean-up task here. The talk page discussion there also illustrates succinctly that the process of citogenesis has already begun. Andreas JN466 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andreas: I too have worked on that article. It is a tricky subject and I can't fault someone for getting it wrong there. Certainly I will agree that the emotional response is to "block indef." due to the scale of the clean-up task. But the scale of the task is not relevant. What's important is whether future contributions have the potential to be a net positive.

Also note most of the articles are 2 line biographies, and very quick to check.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

I appreciate your input over there, Rich. But my intention in pointing out the size of the clean-up task wasn't actually to reinforce the emotional reaction "indef him because he's caused trouble". The issue is rather that we have had cases like this before, where editors have been found to have created large amounts of problematic content, and in most of these cases, the clean-up operation that people spoke of never really happened, with the effort grinding to a halt within a few days or weeks of the problem becoming apparent and most articles left unreviewed. Quite possibly, the best chance of the clean-up operation actually happening in this specific case involves letting Wikicology do it, systematically, under strict mentorship. This is another reason why I would like this to go to ArbCom, because no matter what decision this thread comes to, the likely outcome seems to me that it will be forgotten by most within a month of its closure. And while people may now say, like you, "there is nothing here that can't be cleaned up", the fact will then be that some of this spurious content will be around for years to come, and be repeated by other sources blindly copying from Wikipedia, as has already happened.

By the way, you certainly can and should fault Wikicology for providing the Philippine Statistics Authority's list of family and health surveys as a source for an unsourced statement in Child sexual abuse in Nigeria simply because the Philippines' "National Demographics and Health Surveys" share their "NDHS" acronym with the "Nigerian Demographics and Health Survey" (which also didn't back up the statement made in the article). This kind of surreal referencing has absolutely nothing to do with this being a tricky subject. Andreas JN466 14:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This needs to go to ArbCom, if only for the reason that an exhaustive investigation is necessary for the community to acquire a full grasp of the sheer scale of the problem. Andreas JN466 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Wikicology's faux references are severely concerning, while failure to take his copyvios seriously is dangerous; only a ban would prevent this damage. Esquivalience ^t 05:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block or site ban. As Hijiri88 points out out below, he's already posted similar apologies in the past:
  • Wikicology in 2014: "This discussion has really exposed me to a lot of things and I will make use of all the advices provided above which I have already put into play and I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy."
  • Wikicology in 2016: I hereby beg the community to temper justice with mercy. Hence forth, I will 100% abide by the policies and guidelines and if I violate any of these, a site ban should be imposed without appeal.

Maybe he's done some good for Wikipedia, but right now we need a clean break. Once he understands what went wrong and can convince the community that it won't happen again, he can come back. But, right now, I really don't think he understands. As pointed out above by SmartSE, he's still disruptively editing even during this site ban discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Indef block; the disruption this user has already caused makes such an action necessary to prevent repetition. Offers of mentorship, etc., are appreciated, and respected, but I suggest that the user already understands the founding pillars and policies of the project: he merely chooses to subvert them. As for his apology, I note that it was made after this block proposal was initiated, which suggests it is an attempt to avoid sanction rather than a genuine understanding of the community's concerns. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (re-signed, hours later, as sig was broken)
• Support community site ban. He would not be trusted to make future contributions which means anything he creates will require vetting. That in itself is too much control over community effort. He seems to have edited articles in a field as a way of building up credentials he doesn't have without any regard for the harm erroneous information might cause. It's a scam that has been played multiple times by this user and he needs to be shown the door. Arbcom and WMF can take any additional action they like but the communities patience and goodwill is exhausted. --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Problems have been raised with this editor repeatedly over years, and they responded with empty apologies and promises. They appear to be using their editing for self-promotion, including multiple autobios, and their other editing is of such low quality that several articles have been simply redirected rather than cleaned up. They appear to be cutting-and-pasting to create articles and using unreliable and even false referencing. Fences&Windows 13:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support It has been pointed out in detail during the first ANI case of Sep 2014, that the use of sources which do not support the content is a no-go (see the 15 intermediary edits showing ref problems and his response to it on his talk page. After the ANI he has also received mentoring although I can't find any diffs of that now (perhaps deleted in the meantime). This user has also in the past two years been a very active member on AfD discussions and nominations so one should expect a certain level of competence from him so using arguments such as being a newbie and being overzealous just doesn't cut it. It seems to me that this user is abusing Wikipedia for self promotion: he started out here in previous reincarnations to write his biography, then, with his present user name, aspired to adminship, and in the meantime also has become a recipient of funds from WMF. As in the first ANI, he has again gone from attacking critical editors and making up excuses for his actions to, after the amount of evidence of his misconduct started to pile up, asking for forgiveness stating that he now understands where he has gone wrong. And again he includes a round of "thank you so much for pointing out my mistakes, I will never repeat them again" messages to key people involved in the discussion. The leniency that he received 1 1/2 years ago has now been shown to be detrimental to wikipedia and I highly doubt it that giving him a 3rd chance this time will have the desired effect in making him a good editor. - Takeaway (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, and global lock. He's a bad editor, and should be away from all Wikimedia projects.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that indefinite does not (and should not) necessarily mean forever. From the outset, Wikicology has been here for a personal advancement in status rather than having an impartial and anonymous interest in contributing to an encyclopedia of world knowledge. His user name was chosen to appear as impressive and official-sounding as possible (I am surprised it has been allowed, given the risk of misidentification). Back in September 2014 at [177] I wrote "I came across Wikicology a couple of months ago. My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". Despite his setbacks, I am certain that Wikicology will not stop in his goal to become an administrator [178], and I think Wikicology knows enough about how to tick all the correct boxes to eventually attain that goal despite the clear failings in his editing style, in his interactions with other editors, and the many black marks in his editing history. So stop him now, while we have the chance. A long ban would put a stop to Wikicology's administrator ambitions, and freed from this obsession of becoming an administrator Wikicology might reform his editing style (if he choses to eventually return by successfully appealing his ban in maybe a year from now). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support with this still going to ArbCom to sort out the depth of the problem and what it will take to fix it. When the case starts he can be unblocked with the understanding that the only pages he can post to is the case pages. This person needs to be stopped now. When brought to ANI in 2014 they said, almost verbatim, the same things they are saying now. It's all bullshit. What was the last count now? 14 times they tried to make an article about themselves? Fake credentials. Fake articles to bolster their article count. This person doesn't care about anything here but self aggrandizing. Capeo (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – This needs to go to ArbCom. There are so many issues, so much heated rhetoric, and so little structure that it's difficult to discern the true extent of this user's disruption and whether an alternative to an indefinite block would be viable. I (and I suspect many others) trust Cullen328 a lot, and mentoring under his guidance might be worth a shot. But I also understand the distrust towards Wikicology's apologies given that he's made the same ones before under similar circumstances. We need the structured process of arbitration to break the back of this case. Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. Everything that can be checked is not simply untrue, but purposely deceitful.

1. First and above all, this user is not a newbie nor an anonymous. When interviewed by a Nigerian news media, [179], this user introduces himself as: "I've been editing wikipedia anonymously since 2005 but I became an established editor in 2014", followed by "I'm an Ambassador of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Outreach Coordinator of 'The Wikipedia Library' as well as Coordinator of the 'Wikipedia Education Program' in Nigeria".
   
2. At Linkedin[180], this user is described as "Student at Adekunle Ajasin University". When he tried to become an administrator here, at en:wp, this user was introduced as "a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria [who] focuses primarily on Nigeria-related topics, but also contributes to numerous topics, such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Governments Politics, History, Culture, Business and other encyclopedic subjects". And the user page of this user was not only starting with "a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist" but was adorned with the picture and the caption reproduced here, at the right of the present text.
   
3. At [Wikimedia-l], someone describing himself as "Olatunde Isaac; Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria; User page: Wikicology; Facebook: Olatunde Olalekan Isaac" sends his farewell to Anna Koval, saying "you are a mentor and a leader", "we are proud of you". And now look how the same person is unable to even write her name right.
   
4. At Nitrogen dioxide poisoning, this user backed the quotation "significant exposure may result in fatal conditions that could lead to shorter life span due to heart failure" by a study that compares 6 indoor heaters and 3 ventilations. And also backed "may progress to nasal fissures, ulcerations, or perforation" by a study about underground parking garages. A complete study has already been done above, by several contributors: quite each citation is a fake, linking to something that is not about the quotation. As a result, the curation process was to erase everything. And a lot of articles are of the same vein.
   
5. In the present discussion, the rationale of these fake articles has been explicitely stated: "to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria, for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia". The aim is not mainly to promote himself here, but to promote himself in Nigeria, using Wikimedia as a booster.
6. At the end, this user concludes his techsmart.ng interview by: "I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust." Once again, the main misdeed is not having poisonned a lot of articles. The question to answer is if we really want a guy with such a deceiving behaviour acting as the face of Wikipedia, in Nigeria or anywhere else, or if we think that such a liar should be ousted. Pldx1 (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

   Note, after this thread was closed: I commented out the above image. Please don't post images like this at ANI; they show up in popups and other such things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support regretfully. This is a serious WP:CIR issue, and I don't see much evidence that Wikicology gets it, for multiple values of it. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Way to much damage has been done and I don't think a clean start or mentoring would ever work as after about 2-3 years he could end up going back to what got him here in the first place (and I personally don't and wouldn't trust the user after the above), After the amount of damage caused I don't see a more sensible outcome than Indef...., There's only so much WP:ROPE one can give. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Let it go to Arbcom as per Mz7 above, who has admirably summed up my concerns here. GAB^Hello! 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional proposal: Formalized topic ban on "Olatunde Isaac"

It was suggested somewhere above that, while COI editing and editing about oneself isn't forbidden, we might want to consider forbidding it in this case. While Wikicology has agreed to stop creating articles on Olatunde Isaac, in light of all the background here and repeated transgressions, a formal topic ban should be put in place. This is not intended to replace any other sanction proposals—rather, it's intended as a topic ban that should probably never be revoked, even if other sanctions are lifted. As such, I propose the following:

Wikicology is indefinitely topic banned from: creating, editing, and proposing articles about Olatunde Isaac; from putting images of Olatunde Isaac in mainspace; from adding references to any publications written by or credited to Olatunde Isaac anywhere in mainspace; and from adding written content about Olatunde Isaac anywhere in mainspace.

I believe this needs to be formalized so that both we and Wikicology know specifically what he's prohibited from doing in order that there's no quibbling over the specifics, and any question over how the sanction might be lifted (a voluntary one might provide more wiggle room). Once again, I want to assure any discussants that this is not intended to supplant any other proposals, but as a separate sanction that should survive any others that may someday be lifted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the ban/block proposal. BethNaught (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until reviewed by Arbcom See my comments above. Peter Damian (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an end-run deal apparently designed to subvert and supersede the major and formal investigation which should occur at ArbCom. It's too late for deals and topic bans and cleanups and mentoring. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh come the hell on. If anything, this is designed to augment and supplement whatever ArbCom needs to do. By handling the resolution of this aspect of the case, it frees ArbCom up to consider the far more serious issues. ArbCom isn't some kind of inquisition: They aren't going to independently root out more and more bad things. If anything, a ridiculously minor aspect of the case like this has the potential to distract ArbCom from those serious issues. This proposal will prevent Wikicology or any other individuals from shifting the focus of any arbitration proceedings away from the worse problems. Odds are if you dropped this entire case in ArbCom's lap as is, this would be the sole outcome anyway. By slicing an entire portion of the dispute off, and taking it out of ArbCom's hands, you free up space in pleadings, in evidence, and in argumentation to present those other matters. If you think dealing with this before ArbCom as a massive quagmire would be more helpful, then go and do it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I commented here. I agree it's not about dispute resolution as such, but there are some really important principles involved. Some are saying, indeed Mendaliv themselves, that the most serious claim here is becoming falsified research and credentials, others are saying it's not a big deal. Jimmy himself once said it was not a big deal, in an online context. I would like that one cleared up, by any means. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support in addition to any other sanctions we might impose. One time would be par for the course, and a common way that people break into Wikipedia editing and learn to contribute more constructively. 14 times, with bonus sockpuppetry, shows no evidence of learning to do better. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious first step while considering other measures. This should be uncontroversial and can be imposed immediately, without waiting for the slow grinding of Arbcom's wheels. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Apology

•  Comment: --- I apologize to the community for my gross misconduct. It is true that I hold a degree in Biochemistry and work as a lab scientist and I'm ready to upload my credential and my employment documentation for the community to review anytime I'm called upon to do so. I think I'm just too overzealous with how I go about things which is not the best way for young people like me. The truth remain that I have no bad intention to cause harm to Wikipedia and to betray the community trust. I have no defense mechanism and its apparently clear that I had demonstrated a high level of incompetence. I hereby beg the community to temper justice with mercy. Hence forth, I will 100% abide by the policies and guidelines and if I violate any of these, a site ban should be imposed without appeal. I will work diligenttly with Cullen328 to cleanup the mess I created. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am not seeing any relevant apology here . You say that you do have a degree in Biochemistry, and that you do work as a lab scientist, as though you had been telling the truth all along. What about your claims to be a lecturer? As Sarah says here, your statements that it didn't matter that your photograph caption was untrue (the one of him 'in his office at the university', even though he has never had an office there), and how it didn't matter that you claimed to be an academic because you had only ever made that claim that on Wikipedia suggest that there is a fundamental disconnect. You are incapable of apologising because you cannot see what needs apologising for. How about apologising for the many lies you told to the community, and the many lies you told about the lies? Peter Damian (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What "relevance" are you looking for? It appears to be a sincere apology. He uses language such as "gross misconduct", "high level of incompetence", he is "begging for mercy" and has offered to forward his credentials. What else do you need? - ^theWOLFchild 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

He has submitted in advance to a site ban if he fails to uphold policies again. That's good enough in my book (and I was greatly unimpressed before, see Talk:Lagosians and Talk:Lagos_State#Proposed_merge_from_Lagosians). – Fayenatic London 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I'm staying out of this discussion as much as possible because, frankly, my opinions on what Wikicology has done are quite strong and I'm afraid I might make a bad judgement call (the worst part of it I already expressed on Curly Turkey's talk page, though). But did you read the 2014/09 ANI discussion? Wikicology said the same thing back then -- I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy. He clearly wasn't sincere then, so just saying "he is begging for mercy" is no proof that he is sincere this time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Wikicology hits a lot of our weaknesses, because he can display contrition and in many situations can give a forthright manner in communication. When a person like that is faced with adversity, particularly when said person tries to own up to mistakes and uses very contrite language, there's a desire to defend that person. Compare meatball:DefendEachOther, which is an observation I really enjoy seeing in practice. But contrition and apology is not enough. There has to be progress. As Hijiri88 demonstrates, we've already turned the other cheek, we've already given a second chance, at least once before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several fundamental differences here. He has now agreed to an offer of mentorship. He has now agreed to not create more articles and to work on clean-up. He has now agreed to a site-ban, if he fails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology did receive mentoring after their first ANI case. This was organised outside of the ANI discussion. I can't seem to find the relevant diffs now (perhaps deleted in the meantime) but I am sure that Wikicology can vouch for it. - Takeaway (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Takeaway is correct, but that it was Wikicology himself who proposed and arranged it, approaching some editors he said he admired, rather than it being imposed. So the diffs might be communications on other editors' talk pages. However I might be wrong, since it is now just a vague memory on my part and I didn't pay any further attention to Wikicology after that ANI discussion dried up. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if true, mentors do sometimes bail, but there is no evidence that Cullen will (quite the opposite: Cullen as agreed to report back), and then there is the clean-up (how much better can it get for the Pedia and everyone if that succeeds), and the agreement to site-ban, if it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I remember that the then mentor didn't bail and that Wikicology successfully finished the mentoring period. - Takeaway (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that's true, you have brought forth evidence of reform, constructive contribution, and working with others constructively. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Which apparently didn't last very long seeing how he now stands here for some of the same mistakes he made before the first round of mentoring. - Takeaway (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not having the details of the mentoring, it is not possible to say. At any rate, mentoring is only one-part of what is the present plan. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note I had begun a dialogue with Wikicology on my T/P. I should clarify that I am willing to assist mentoring. I have asked for an account of what's been going on and Ideas from WK on the priority areas to tackle. Constructive contributions are welcome. Simon Irondome (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikicology. --Andreas JN466 05:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Another proposal

There has been no clear consensus among the previous proposals to block indefinite and/or ban. Let's try another approach.

Proposed

Wikicology is will endeavour to clean up the 500+ articles he's created, with the goal of bringing them to Wikipedia's standards. He will accept the mentorship of Cullen328 and any advice given by Irondome, and any other experienced editors. He will not create any more articles unless approved by his mentor. He will not edit any articles unless approved by his mentor, with the exception of the ones he's cleaning up. If at any point it appears that Wikicology is not working towards this goal, or his mentor feels he not contributing in good faith, then he will be banned from the project. - ^theWOLFchild 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit: "...and any other experienced editors" - can be determined here or by the mentor(s). - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) - ^theWOLFchild 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Irondome (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely not. Do you realise just how ridiculous making it compulsory to accept any advice … given by any experienced editors is? As you can see from this very thread, it's rare for a group of Wikipedia editors to agree on anything (and if you search enough, you can find someone willing to endorse pretty much any course of action). You may want to look into just how well it went last time somebody tried to implement a proposal like this. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was an attempt, and a brave attempt. There is no cast - iron reason to assume failure if it is repeated. What is being proposed is strong oversight by the community from the off. In the linked example, there appears to have been some pushback by the mentoree based on the final statement of closure. It is very likely we will get a more positive outcome here. Irondome (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The speficis can be adjusted. Do you support the concept? If so, then suggest any changes you'd like to see. - ^theWOLFchild 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly because Wikicology is not an new editor (and thinks he has experience enough to have even requested to be an administrator). I seem to recall that when he was a new editor a mentoring solution was suggested (after this [181]). In that earlier case there were numerous comments about his inability to take advice or follow advice or stop doing certain things. Has Wikicology changed? If the proposed mentors want to mentor or give advice to Wikicology in an informal way then that is OK, but I don't think this should be made into a formalized solution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Sorry, but your comment makes no sense. None at all. Can you clarify? - ^theWOLFchild 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposing as a solution something that has failed in the past makes no sense at all. Mentoring is for new editors who are willing to take advice, not for long-term editors who have shown a repeated pattern of rejecting advice and who are so secure in the certainty of their correctness that they assume administrator status is within their grasp. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK WC has never had official mentoring, especially under threat of a site ban if he fails to comply. There is no downside here. Either it doesn't work, and he's banned. Or it does, and the articles are fixed and we gain worthy, rehabilitated and redeemed editor. - ^theWOLFchild 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support (except strike that any experienced editor clause as vague) we should definitely try it, the pedia can win big, and if not the ban kicks in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is absurd to expect someone who was — intentionally or unwittingly — the cause of a problem to fix that problem. We don't know anything about motivations, we don't know about awareness that there even was a problem. We're already dealing with someone who falsely represented themselves, for sure. How much of the content is utterly faked? It's not for them to tell us. Zero trust. Zero. There needs to be independent inquiry and cleanup either through or akin to a CCI case. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering this effort would be supervised by Cullen and Irondome (at the least), what is there to lose? Where is the "absurdity"? Either he fixes the problem, (a win for the project), or he's banned, (which is what you want anyway) and the project is no worse off. - ^theWOLFchild 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)In a CCI case, the user is actively encouraged to participate in cleaning up their own mess, and unlike CCI, here he has two editors looking over his shoulder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's unclear that Wikicology has the willingness and WP:COMPETENCE to clean up the mess he created. If he couldn't recognize bad sources when he was creating these articles, what would suddenly be different that would let him recognize them now? Past history seems to show him putting on a show of contrition and then reverting to past misbehavior after the fuss dies down. Cleaning up this problem is too important to entrust it to someone like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Really important? As no one is saying you could not also clean-up, and/or also watch him do it, what you say is a 'non-sequitur'. If it's important, let's not leave here without a plan. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps every editor here casting an 'oppose' !vote should personally assume responsibility for cleaning up 20 of WC articles. - ^theWOLFchild 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be attacking anyone who declines to accept your proposal. The above comment is not doing your proposal any good. If every one of the 500+ articles that WC has created is really needing "cleaning up" as you suggest, is mentoring an appropriate solution for an editor who has created that amount of disruption? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Relax, no one is being "attacked" here. And, yes... the specific mentoring proposal that Cullen and Irondome have put forward have a very good chance of success. There is nothing to lose. Either it works, and WP is better off, or it doesn't, WC is banned and WP still goes on... - ^theWOLFchild 01:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Not the mentoring, the cleaning-up is the appropriate solution - the mentoring is to get it done and appropriately, and the no more articles is to get it done without further ado. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say thousands of Wikipedia articles are "cleaned up" in some way every day - so the cleaning up of WC's 500+ will be done anyway, eventually, under the normal editing processes that all articles can go through. But what this proposal is saying is that an editor who thinks so highly of his Wikipedia editing abilities that he feels ready to be an administrator is actually so currently unfit to be an editor that he should not be allowed to make any article edits without approval. I really don't think mentoring can fix a problem this serious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This proposal is not saying anything of the kind. I'm just trying to find a solution that benefits the project and brings this ridiculous ANI to a close. What solution do you have to propose instead? (Oh, and fat chance of those articles somehow being magically cleaned up on their own. It's not as if Nigerian-based content is a hotbed of copy-editing activity here.) - ^theWOLFchild 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Eppstein inter alia. Wikicology has already had plenty of rope. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I was just about to propose something like this too. Look, I agree that several of the concerns raised about this user (sockpuppetry, autobiography, repeated recreation of deleted articles) are serious and could be blockable. The first such action was in 2013, but the most recent recreation of the autobiography was less than a month ago,[182] so an "I didn't know any better" defense does not appear to be justifiable. Other concerns (poor quality of articles created, poor sourcing), as outlined at this ANI discussion, could be considered for lesser sanctions such as a topic ban. The complaint about "faking credentials" does not concern me, but there are other serious issues here. However, I find much to admire in this user and I would very much like to retain him as a member of Wikipedia. Wikipedia really needs people who care about the project and work (as a volunteer, please note) to extend its reach to less-served areas of the world. So rather than a block or community ban, I would much prefer something like Wolfchild's suggestion. I would propose a one-year topic ban on creating articles, during which time he cleans up (with supervision) the articles he has already created, accepts the kind offer of mentorship from Cullen and Irondome and possibly others acceptable to this discussion, and continues to promote Wikipedia in his own country. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: This editor's contribs should be removed to draftspace or talk pages until they are positively evaluated by independent editors. I have zero confidence in this editor's ability to repair the damage he's done, even with mentorship. It seems like every day we're finding out something else detrimental this editor has done. Why should we let him loose and risk more, even harder to detect damage? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, just no This type of proposal gets thought of all the time when someone spews a mess into 100's of articles (copyvios or whatever else), and it never works. If they could tell the difference, they wouldn't have created the problem in the first place. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"All the time"...? Really? Show me one other time... - ^theWOLFchild 03:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gavin.collins, for one. 184.13.27.137 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

One example, from 6 years ago. When you said "all the time" and it "never works", I was expecting a long list of examples to support that. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you're looking for an example of an editor who needed mediation and then continued to engage in the same sort of behavior necessitating further blocks after the mediation ended? You of all people are asking this question, Thewolfchild? Really? -Thibbs (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a bad joke. Wikicology pretends to be a lecturer when talking here, and pretends to be a Wikipedian in good repute when talking outside, to Nigerian press or to Nigerian faculty. I don't trust User:Cullen328 or User:Irondome for being able to check if Wikicology introduces himself as a guy on the verge of being ousted or as "the face of Wikipedia in Nigeria". Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a not a "joke", just a proposal to try and bring this nonsense to an end and get started on the clean-up, which no one, (including you) has expressed any interest in helping with, except for Cullen and Irondome, the 2 editors you have just insulted no reason. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Monitoring an Ambassador because you don't trust what he could say, what a great concept ! Pldx1 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pldx1 Your sarcastic and negative tone is really not helping here. Irondome (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's sarcasm. I think he really doesn't know what he's talking about... - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - He's caused enough damage to the point where I personally don't trust him to clean up and fix those mistakes, Plus he cannot be monitored 24 hours a day and so he could easily do more damage without anyone noticing (I apologize if it comes across as bad faith but it's honestly how I feel). –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal Withdrawn.

Consider this proposal withdrawn, as it's clear it isn't going anywhere, just like all the other proposals above, and the ANI in general. Obviously ArbCom will have to step in and handle this since the community is incapable of doing so. While I don't think Wikicology is as evil as everyone is making him out to be, he certainly has created one hell of a mess, but aside from Cullen and Irondome, I don't really see anyone else offering to help clean it up. I hope ArbCom takes notice of the offer put forward by these 2 generous editors. - ^theWOLFchild 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment leaning toward support - This isn't a personal promise or a policy/guideline proposal, it's a proposal regarding the community's approach to handling a problematic editor. So I'm not sure it's really the sort of proposal that can be withdrawn, Thewolfchild. Especially not at this point. There are numerous editors who support it in good faith and although this ANI thread's closure may put an end to the proposal, further discussion on the topic in the meanwhile may help ArbCom down the road if it comes to that. I lean toward supporting this proposal as well. There's a certain poetic justice in getting someone who caused problems to be the one to clean them up. -Thibbs (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, but it's clear that this proposal will not gain the requisite consensus for implementation. It's also clear that this ANI is well past the point of being useful. I now agree with the majority here that ArbCom needs to step in and handle this and should close this ANI. I'm hoping that marking my clearly failed proposal as 'withdrawn' will expedite the process. I have made mention of this in my entry at the ArbCom request, bringing this proposal to their attention, so hopefully it, and the !votes of the 3 supporting editors, will not be wasted. - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of user rights?

Wikicology has accountcreator, yet is an admitted sockpuppeteer. He also has autopatrolled and a PC reviewer, but has been demonstrated to create a great deal of problematic content. Would someone please remove access to these tools? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been partially done by User:Xeno [183]. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Credentials

Today, at ArbCom, and OTRS member confirmed receipt of Wikicology's credentials, and so, I think all the accusations (and associated insults) about "faked credentials" needs to stop. There are some comments here that are not only a violation of policy, but in poor taste. I would suggest that participants review your remarks, redact where necessary and even perhaps, offer an apology. (something, something, "talking the talk", blah blah blah...) - ^theWOLFchild 00:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All that's been verified by OTRS is that Wikicology has sent files claiming to have had a degree and a job. Respectfully, you appear to be missing the critical aspect of this matter, that Wikicology claimed to be a "lecturer" (a position which, in Nigeria, appears to require, either by law or by regulation, a PhD), which claim was relied upon in multiple venues to the community's detriment (e.g., his RfA), and which detrimental reliance Wikicology willfully failed to even attempt to remedy until he was confronted about it in this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I thought the big kerfuffle was over whether or not he has a qualification (ie: degree) in biology and whether or not he was working in that field (that and the whole 'office' thing...). He stated that he gave lectures at the university, has that been disproven? And what "law or regulation" (in Nigeria) regulates the title of "lecturer"? *Note; Keep in mind I only ask for my own curiosity now. Nothing that is said here will change what is to come. This ANI is a bust. It'll have be shut down and ArbCom will have to step in and address this whole mess. Oh well, at least we tried... Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 02:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There was an illuminating comment by NinjaRobotPirate buried way above (diff). The evident point is that Nigerian universities are not permitted to employ non-PhDs as lecturers. The important part of that is, even if it shows there is a historical tendency of non-PhDs being employed as lecturers by some Nigerian universities, the standard of the relevant community is that in Nigeria, a person who is a lecturer is expected to be a PhD. The problem, at least for me, and which has been raised elsewhere, is that in multiple places Wikicology has called himself a lecturer. Everything I have seen about Wikicology is that he holds a bachelor's, and which was only fairly recently awarded. The claim of being a lecturer has been taken to the community's detriment, and in at least the case of his RfA, stated in the nom statement. While Wikicology isn't responsible for the mistakes of others in overstating his credentials, I believe he has a responsibility to correct our misapprehensions when he is made aware of them (i.e., in the RfA nom statement). I agree, there are some distasteful claims being made in this ANI and elsewhere, which do our community a great disservice. In spite of those claims, there's still a huge amount of things wrong here. I concur that ArbCom is going to need to handle this in some manner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It would do well to remember what happened last time Wikipedia took someone's credentials at face value.... Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wikicology could prove conclusively that he has a doctorate and a teaching position at a university (even though he has already admitted that this latter was a lie) and it still wouldn't justify what he did in the article space. Furthermore, the submitted documents imply that Wikicology does not hold anything more than a BSc. If I have read the above thread correctly, Wikicology claimed to be a professional researcher with a university teaching position (the latter having already been admitted to being a lie), clearly implying he had a doctorate. The submitted documents just give more evidence that he was lying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

User:Olaniyan Olushola recently removed Wikicology as a mentor on his user page but has not commented here. In addition I noticed a User creation log where one of Olushola's adoptees accounts was created by Wikicology during some sort of class (per the log). Also, they have an overlap with WIMBIZ. I don't know if this is enough for SPI but I found it odd that the "mentor" was removed without comment. I would certainly like to hear Olaniyan Olushola's opinion of Wikicology as they seem familiar with each other. --DHeyward (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a little too early to call for a SPI, and honestly doubt a CU would be helpful. Both editors have been active in the Nigerian Wikipedian User Group and held edit-a-thons together, so they've almost certainly shared IP addresses at a variety of times. I know CUs see more than that, but meh. I would like to hear anything Olaniyan Olushola has to say about Wikicology, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Kick it to arbcomm

Some arbitrators are making noise that they want to see how this discussion plays out before agreeing to a case. I don't think this discussion is going to end in a coherent solution of the sort that arbcomm can provide. I recommend that an uninvolved administrator close the discussion with a result: demand arbcomm action. That's what needs to happen here.

jps (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be totally fine with this. ANI isn't going to resolve this adequately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. This thread should be closed so Arbitration can move ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Mz7 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - End this train wreck already. - ^theWOLFchild 16:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I don't know about "demand", but yeah it's better to kick this to them if they'll take it. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support They're waiting for this ANI to close anyway... just get it over with and let arbcom deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support for the following reasons: 1) Too complex for ANI, 2) No clear consensus forming here, 3) Private evidence is now in play which prevents the community from making an informed decision, 4) The person in question has complained about having to face this on two fronts, 5) Arbcom members have mentioned waiting for this discussion to be closed before accepting and it is unlikely we will solve this. Though demand arbcomm action seems like an odd close, more appropriate would be It is unlikely the community will come to a resolution here. We don't need to be demanding things from arbcom, they know how to decide on action. HighInBC 17:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - what a mess. Peter Damian (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support --Andreas JN466 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Too many issues all rolled up into one big mess. Best handled at arbcomm. - Takeaway (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - needs sorting out as soon as possible. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We should be thinking about unbundling the issues that ANI can deal with here, and some of the issues that it cannot. We can enforce a ban on Wc working on any new material, and have him work with others under close supervision on material he has compromised. If he explicitly follows instructions and has shown in a year that he can competently handle citations, notability, all the nuts and bolts stuff, then we can re-consider what to do. I believe their are cultural issues which have not been addressed which has driven some of Wc's behaviours. There are many intelligent colleagues acting in GF here. It would be supprising if we cannot think of some solution at this level. Irondome (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: The problem with ANI is a complete lack of structure. The free-for-all format here works well for smaller disputes, but less so for the complexity of this one. The sheer breadth of issues is so overwhelming that I would be very impressed if we could unite behind a solution at this level. The more structured, formalized process of evidence submission and remedy workshopping at ArbCom is far better suited for a complicated dispute such as this one. As far as working "with others under close supervision" goes, it is my understanding that that was already proposed and discussed extensively above, but there was no consensus to implement it—but that's also something we can recommend to ArbCom. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: You know that you can participate at the arbcomm case, right? I think your suggestions are valuable, but would be better if made in the context of an arbcomm statement, workshop proposal, or request for motion. jps (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe there is clear evidence to support an immediate indefinite block, and I also believe that there is consensus in the thread above for that to happen. Arbcom have indicated they will wait for any such outcome before commencing proceedings anyway. The sooner action is taken, the better, in my view. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System

See also: User talk:Godsy § St. John's Fire District and other moves, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Continued Disruption by User:QEDK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § MfD end run GAME, and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31 § User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp

---

After failing to get me sanctioned for alleged gaming [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190] [191], , Godsy immediately [192] embarked on his own WP:GAME mission reverting moves into mainspace of WP:STALEDRAFT articles on non-controversial and easily verified topics [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199].

This activity is quite pointy [200] and downright hypocritical. While he claims he is trying to prevent me from getting material deleted from userspace (including the stupid suggestion I'm moving pages to main to delete them) he is himself deleting the Stale Draft material from mainspace where I placed it for other editors to expand and improve. His actions are in direct contravention of WP:COMMONSENSE (does nothing to expand or improve the encyclopedia) and the guidelines at WP:CHALLENGE. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." He made no effort to add sources or verify anything.

Godsy is part of the small group that appears to want userspace drafts untouched [201] regardless of how old or unsuitable and against policy WP:DRAFT that allows any user to work on them.

I'd like to see these moves all reversed and material restored to mainspace. Let's tag up anything that is actually questionable and see if we can improve these topics rather then delete them by stealth by relegating good topics to userspace forever. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another report? Sigh... either an admin needs to boldly handle all these or it's likely to end up at arbcom (which is ridiculous imho). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, any admin who does involved is then part of problem so we shall see. WP:UP is now protected since there's massive editing going to create new policy which then gets taken straight to MFD and arguments continue again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Me thinks this is gonna end up at Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stand my move summaries. Stating the current rules and my subsequently following them isn't equal to "Godsy ... appears to want userspace drafts untouched regardless of how old or unsuitable". I think that a consensus should be formed on the issue of the types of moves Legacypac has been doing. Objections have been raised across multiple forums by many editors, and users shouldn't continue unilateral action not supported by the rules and consensus when their actions are challenged. If Legacypac wants the couple of handfuls (approx. 10) of moves I reverted reveiwed, perhaps the approx. 250 questionable moves from the userspace or draftspace to the mainspace they performed this year should be called into to question. I refuted the above twisting of WP:V on my talk page, so I'm not going to waste space and do it again here. That's all I have to say.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• The unsatisfying close of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD_end_run_GAME was unfortunate. It gives implicit approval to the GAMING, short of an arbcom ruling. The disputed boldness needs to stop for policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On my part, the amount of activity exceeds my ability to review. It is not possible to see the full picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny Why are we back at ANI already? I really hope this doesn't have to go before ArbCom. We should be working together on an answer to the draft situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything (not true obviously since by his count I've moved 250 pages forward) but insists on himself effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace without any effort to improve them. Now he calls into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is his agenda here?

Policy development is always an option, but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE. If he really does not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of your statements point by point:

"We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything"

False. I've stated that some of your page moves were inappropriate per the guideline that currently exist (i.e. WP:STALEDRAFT, "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;") in the AN/I thread about your actions (not started by me I might add). If a page you move to the mainspace is deleted, then it clearly is not suitable for the mainspace.

"effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace"

"pages I think are a good start for mainspace" seems to be unequal to "suitable".

"Now [they] call into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is [their] agenda here?"

By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. If a page gets deleted, it wasn't suitable for the mainspace, and should not have been moved. That means the page moves were improper. If that big of a chuck of the page moves were improper, what is to say that others were not as well? Some of the page moves I reverted were articles slated for deletion (example).

This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination speak for themselves.

"but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE"

I wouldn't consider call 10/250 (less than 5% of the moves) "mass undoing". I gave a good reason in my summary of the moves: "The article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace." WP:COMMONSENSE is part of WP:IAR?, and I'm not ignoring the rules.

The fact that about 10% of your page moves have resulted one way or another in deletion, and that you nominated a page for deletion at AfD after you moved it from the userspace to the mainspace because you disliked the standards of MfD (By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination), calls into question whether your actions were in good faith.

"If [they] really do not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix."

I neither like nor dislike the pages, and that is not a reason to take something to AfD. That aside: if the pages are in a state that they can be reasonably taken to AfD, then the page move was improper, as pages should not be moved unless they are suitable (i.e. meet the core content policies). As such the page moves should be reverted and the proper forum to seek deletion would be MfD. I did not "stealth delete" pages, I reverted some page moves.

So, I'll ask those reading this thread to take your statements with a grain of salt at the least, and I won't be responding to any more of your falsehoods here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ffs, Legacypac (talk · contribs), it's enough. We've seen enough of your bullshit, man. I cordially invite you to form an ArbCom case request, if it pleases you but stop making revenge threads about every other person who has the guts to oppose you. Forever and evermore, thine. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, for the people who oppose Legacypac, what's the next step? Is there an actual plan here beyond just dragging this back here and again with accusations? There's been topic ban proposals, admonishment proposals, and now wholesale reverts of the moves. None of the proposed sanctions seem to have actual support so we're left again with people making accusations. Of course I've been accused of either collaborating or coordinating or colluding or something else so I'll wait for that as well. If Legacypac takes the pages to MFD, will we will be back here again for "gaming" because he's mass-listing these at MFD? And no, yelling and screaming that he should go away is not an actual solution here so please provide some idea of what people are supposed to do. I think everyone agrees that moving pages to mainspace is fine in concept so can someone point to a policy that explicitly says when it is appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, moving pages that will clearly not survive in mainspace is not fine. That has been, time and again, been cleared out by admins and non-admins alike. Not to mention, you and a couple of others who are overreaching NOTWEBHOST to delete drafts by saying, Wikipedia's not an indefinite place for storage of data when the actual policy says something altogether. Again, it's him against policy, not me. Moreover, this thread was just meant for revenge. Needless to say, everyone's tired of his pointless charades and if he thinks he's right, he can take the highway to heaven. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So you get to determine that they aren't going to survive in mainspace and that's enough? User:Akivah/Yeshivat Rambam Maimonides Academy page seemed like a perfectly fine stub for mainspace to me. And I'm certain there's no policy that says people can unilterally move stuff back into userspace just because they don't like the person who did it. At the very least Godsy could have combined them into a single AFD and discussed them to let other people decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You do realize the references were added after I reverted the move, correct?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected on that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

10/10 Legacypac trying to clear his image because he was the one who moved the unsuitable draft in the first place. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listed the pages at AfD because per what I can derive from policies and guidelines that is the improper forum. If the pages could be reasonably listed there, the page moves themselves are improper, and as such the proper forum would be MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do wish to be blunt. This is essentially reopening the other discussion, which was closed reasonably. While I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning for Legacypac's moves, moving them BACK to Userspace without discussion is definitely disruptive and possibly even WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, especially so soon after the prior ANI discussion was closed. If you really can't work it out without fighting and disrupting the encyclopedia, then I think, at the very least, there should be an interaction ban here or at the very least a voluntary Wiki-break for the involved persons also. Please realize that this really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, even if no one gets their own way here. Getting into these heated discussions only hurts Wikipedia. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Chrisw80: I reverted a few of the moves that were problematic and improper (approx. 10/250, less than 5% of the moves). Legacypac moved them boldy, so I think it was reasonable for me to revert a few that clearly had issues (one of the worst examples). If I had reverted the moves without being super selective or en masse, I could understand your position. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion. Just making sure you had some information that is vital, as there is a lot to read across all the discussions. Respectfully,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: That information is important, and it does moderate my opinion somewhat, but it doesn't change it materially. Thank you for replying and for the information. Best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The bold moves were discussed before and I think the consensus was that, other than the accusations, the discussion was haywire. Now, I took the problematic ones I saw to AFD and for that was accused of being in collusion for asking if the move was actually appropriate. So is the result (a) we can't leave them alone and (b) we can't discuss the mainspace pages via AFD and (c) all that can be done is unilateral reversions of page moves? That's not a recipe for resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• So as an admin, you're telling me making unilateral moves are fine but unilaterally reverting them is not? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @QEDK: Aren't these basically CSD criteria applied in mainspace? That's the admin role. Userification is done by admins, we don't generally allow people to just unilaterally take mainspace pages and forcibly move them without discussion at all. Seems strange to say that these pages can be moved back into a variety of userspaces without any discussion at all, especially when the last ANI discussion resulted in no action. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was BOLD, hope you got no problem with that, since you were fine elsewhere. And, there's no rule that says userfication cannot be done by non-admins. You do realize everything was done without any discussion, so why do you just keep citing just one side of the whole story. As an admin, you should have already taken the responsibility and closed all of Legacypac's revenge threads, his attempts at throwing dirt on people (I counted three including me) are quite uninteresting to watch. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that was argued before, got no action as the close. Clearly that's irrelevant because it was reverted anyway and now we're here again on the other side about the reverting. We aren't going to have move wars and proposals to topic ban/admonish/whatever were all rejected. If this results in no action again, is anyone actually going to move on? The proposals now are to stop all of MFD which is absurd or to "stop" a project which is equally odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Suspend all of MFD

There is one solution here: suspend all of MFD and any movement/deletion of any userspace drafts until there is a clear consensus of what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as patently ridiculous. There are plenty of solutions to this other than suspending MfD. A suitable compromise can be made here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Suspension of WP:WikiProject abandoned drafts would be more like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also patently ridiculous as it would not address the issue at hand. What we do need is more help over at MfD by experienced editors and admins. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Chrisw80, that's not right. Currently MfD has more active participants than it ever had. The recent MfD battles, messy as they were, albeit continuing, have shifted the battlefront to creative (GAMING) issues of liberal CSDing, sometimes explicit reference to IAR, and unilateral moves of userpage drafts to mainspace or draftspace. While many of the moves are good or fair actions, some are not, and the activities have gotten ahead of policy documentation. I suggest suspension to allow for the policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that the MFD header and WP:UP keeps getting changed (so much that UP was protected) and then those changes are being used as allegedly "policy changes" at MFD shows is more gaming than anything else. Screaming that everyone involved is scheming together without evidence and demanding that we stop all of this in favor of new discussions after you create and withdraw proposals looks more like you're just creating stalling tactics until everyone else is either topic banned or so frustrated they go away. There's a line between actual disagreement and massively being obstructionist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Does more harm than good.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Facepalm Hell no. Once we get a full-blown draft MfD discussion rolling I am hopeful that Legacypac will curtail nominating behavior that might disrupt that discussion. If not we can revisit the MfD topic ban idea proposed in the previous thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspension and dissolution of Abandoned Drafts WikiProject

Ok if we aren't going to shut down MFD, then the next solution is to shut down the Abandoned Drafts project and suspend all MFD discussions regarding userspace drafts. Any project this far off the rails needs to be eliminated completely. 107.72.99.115 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too draconian. When and if we get a proposal discussion actually going we can agree to temporarily suspend draft MfDs during the pendency of that discussion, but that should only happen if that discussion is disrupted, and should only persist temporarily. The abandoned drafts project is not the problem. The problem is a lack of clear, realistic policy guidance on article drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself? This is coming from someone who is experienced with an actual problematic WikiProject. It was merely taking Category:Stale userspace drafts and making it a static table. Other than that, the project has basically been dead since 2011. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself?". Yes. It is small and specific. It has listed a lot of old drafts with a implication that something should be done to reduce or even eliminate the list. There is clearly not consensus for that. Sure, many of the listed pages are delectable under G* criteria, others are good to move to mainspace, but the set of intended drafts of unclear potential are being subjected to actions that were not discussed and are now disputed. A little time to discuss a proper guideline please. Dissolution is overkill. Suspension for a week or two? --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite there yet. I think that if the noms continue on unabated once we have a discussion kicked off, then absolutely call for a temporary moratorium on staledraft noms (it's not like they're going anywhere). Until it's clear something's happening it'd be premature to ask for a halt to noms, but the tradeoff (in my view) is that once something's clearly happening we might call for something involuntary, from targeted bans from listing drafts at MfD up to a broad halt of the MfD process, to compel discussion. The listers are at least justified in not wanting to stop before a concrete discussion emerges since it's entirely possible nothing will emerge once the pressure is off. But, again, once something emerges the listing should stop, either until a proposal emerges and is adopted, or until discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it after my vacation is over or someone else can. No problem. I guess, the temporary moratorium can start from now? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So the problem is that it has a list of old userspace drafts? Should the category be deleted? Should all the categories at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard be deleted or suspended? The Oldest People project was a decade of chaos with Arbcom cases and no one considered suspending or deleting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USERSPACE DRAFTS. THE ENTIRE PROJECT MUST BE DELETED NOW There is no reason for anyone to care about whatever people did in their userspace, it is THEIR space after that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How about no? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as this has been clearly labeled as housekeeping, no need to continue fighting about this. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DESTROYING ARTICLES WITHOUT THOUGHT is not housekeeping.

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

Request for closure

Can this be closed now? I don't think anyone is suggesting that an admin re-move these pages back into mainspace and I don't think anyone here actually has a serious proposal on what to do. The demands on a moratorium don't really seem to have consensus and we shouldn't just wait around until QEDK's vacation is over or the like. There's been numerous discussions going on with changes to a number of policies and numerous MFD discussions as well. There's clearly disagreement on what should be done but regardless of all this chaos, there's been no discussions taken to DRV for any further analyses so I'm presuming that the closings and resolutions afterwards are at the very least not worth fighting. We still need someone to close the RFCs regarding relistings at WT:MFD so that can be resolved and just more eyes at MFD would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Screw it. Don't close this. Let's just have round five of this idiocy continue on and have everyone pile on. What's the next proposal, indefinite bans all around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm letting the antics get to me. It seems as though this can be closed as there's nothing further to do if people considered Legacypac's page-moves as inappropriately WP:BOLD in the first place. I'd prefer we have a policy where mass unilateral reversions were not done and instead the pages could be discussed each but that's not happening at the moment.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

These 166 IPs are obviously trolls, and I would love if admins could block them for a week or so after they leave a comment like this. They seem to have gotten under Ricky's skin, and clearly aren't making reasonable suggestions. A2soup (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See here. That range seems to be a magnet for abuse. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed this. I thought I saw someone reverting a 166' IP's !vote at an MfD as being by a banned user... if so, anybody have any idea who the banned user is? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there have been multiple bans/ban proposals for 166 editors. See this for one of the bans. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, look at that. I vaguely remember that discussion now that I've seen it. Wonder if it's time for a LTA page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Now Godsy is DRV'ing to restore a stale draft promotional article. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_March_31#User:Acresant1123.2FChaz_Knapp This editor is hell bent on reversing cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Godsy has a point. The wrong method to the right result here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, most of these old drafts need to be processed, many deleted, but the wrong method has been implement. The WP:BRD principle applies, bold implementation objected to, so stop, discussion how to proceed.

Also agree on the 166.x.x.x problem. I don't know what he has got against Ricky, but he is using all unrelated opportunities to abuse Ricky. Ricky is doing well to remain as calm as he is, 166.x.x.x is most definitely not helping with anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've been collecting some info on this troll for some time. See here for just some of the info I've gathered from AN / ANI, which I used to frame the ban proposal. The most prolific 166 troll is one that has been hounding Ricky for months. A few other banned users are also in that range. The most likely banned user that is doing all the hounding is Kochtruth who has ome run ins with Ricky before being indef'd. Since then, any time there is a thread involving Ricky, the 166 troll will show up to stir shit. Editors not familiar with their MO will respond in good faith but in general, it's safe to RBI them Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

More Disruption by restoring deleted articles to userspace against deletion discussions

Look at this [202] and [203] where Godsy requests restoration to other people's userspace and even says "I don't plan to improve the content at this time". When the admins declined to put it in stale userspace he starts creating pages in the userspace of long departed users User:Aaaloco/Solitaire_&_Mahjong and User:Trekie9001/Duplekita These antics are overriding AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire & Mahjong and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita and simply lead to more pages at MfD and RfD. There is no benefit or attempt to improve the encyclopedia in these actions. Seriously - how is this helping anyone? Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bull. That is not the problem. The problem is that we can destroying decades of work literally from our most prolific editors under the guise of "cleanup." We need to drastically change non-free image policy so that we aren't ham fistedly alienating these editors. 107.72.97.194 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely contesting deletions following the proper process. I stand by the creation of the redirects: they allow the user, in whose userspace the content used to reside, to easily find the content and resume work in the event that they return.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are free to request the restoration but admins are going to keep questioning you about why you're doing it if you aren't going to work on the drafts. Do you actually think these are plausible drafts or is all this nonsense simply WP:POINT? Why in the world you want to put those draft back in to the inactive user's userspace is beyond me. SmokeyJoe has been arguing that it's somehow easier for people to find it there which I just find baffling but whatever, that's up to you all. In six months, I'll be more than happy to propose those again for deletion if you aren't working on them and then we can have another discussion here about whether all these restoration requests were serious attempts to restore work or just WP:POINT game-playing since you aren't convincing anyone of anything at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, where have I been arguing that is "easier"? I don't recall. I do recall pointing out that searching UserSpace with the Wikipedia search engine is easy, as is using WhatLinksHere from mainspace topics to find related userspace material.

"to propose those again for deletion if you aren't working on them". That sounds WP:TENDENTIOUS on your part. XfD is not cleanup. Who are you to impose timelimits on when things have to be worked up to mainspace standard? Draft age is a furphy, what is important is whether the draft has the makings to become an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Process is my concern. Discussions with closing administrators is a step on the path to deletion review. If inappropriate deletions are not challenged, they will continue to happen, and that is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm simply cleaning up the worst of a large group of moves from the userspace to the mainspace, part of which were not suitable for the mainspace, as is required. The worst examples: User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki → Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell → Richard d'Anjolell (move summary- "stale 2009 draft from a single purpose acct found in cleanup", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell, and quote-"Several editors insist that MfD can not consider WP:GNG so I've moved the page to mainspace to allow a wider discussion on the merits of this article.") Legacypac moved these pages to the mainspace from the userspace and then nominated them for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed they were suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies). Legacypac also stated, as shown in the above quotes I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. It calls all of the other moves into question, and suggests the inappropriate moves might not have merely been inept judgement about the "suitability", but rather an attempt to cleanup and delete in an unapproved manner. My attempt to cleanup a small portion of this mess has been within the realm of acceptable behavior. If I had wanted to make a POINT, I'd have reverted all the moves en masse, which I'd have arguably been within my rights to do per BRD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: So this has nothing to do with whether or not the drafts are viable but all about WP:BURO? Well, I asked the two admins who restored it if they could express an opinion here on what they thought they were doing, restoring them because the AFD was improper or restoring them for the purpose of moving the drafts forward. The fact that neither restored them to the original location and instead put them in draftspace indicates that it was more likely the latter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: That's fine. I was very clear in the reasoning behind my requests at User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita and User talk:Michig#Solitaire & Mahjong. I even went as far as to state to one of the two administrators after their inquiry about this very subject "I don't plan to improve the content at this time, I've actually never seen the page, as I came across this situation after its deletion."—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Really? Asking their opinion in a neutral manner would be one thing, but doing so in that way is inappropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: The issue is the restoration of those pages. I think the thoughts that the admins had when they restored them were appropriate. It's a concern because those pages are back at MFD and it's clear the only arguments going on are the actual process wonkery, not whether not the pages should be kept. As I note below, Legacypac also conducted a number of page moves that were deleted via CSD. If you are serious about reversing all of that in good faith, I'd suggest you justify the rationale behind all AFD reversals if you want to argue that those should be restored as well. The same "process is relevant" or not debate applies to these AFD deletions as well as to the CSD ones and I'd argue that these should be deleted because the CSD ones were not restored (nor has anyone ask for them to be). You being bold with what you can get away with is not the same as having approval to reverse things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I have already requested the non-general speedy deletions be undeleted, and they were, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity... You may not like my actions for whatever reason, but you have yet to show or provide any evidence that they were inappropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Rehashing discredited attacks against me yet again. It is not in your right to revert edits by one editor enmass unless you can prove I'm a vandal. Putting trash back in the project is hardly called cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored the Solitaire & Mahjong article to draft space because Godsy stated regarding improvement "I'll definitely take a look into it if the content is restored". The AfD was clear enough, the restore to draft was to allow an attempt to deal with the issues identified in the AfD, i.e. notability. I didn't restore it to the original editor's userspace as they haven't been active for over 4 years. If it becomes apparent that the article issues are not going to be dealt with, the draft can be deleted. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I restored Duplekita to the draft namespace under understanding that someone would be working on it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Michig:, sorry to keep this going but both pages in draftspace are up at MFD again along with the newly created redirects from the old userspace pages to the new drafts. I'm not sure how to proceed here but I'm more concerned about further good-faith moves (we are argue about the faith of these later), subject to deletion and whether there is any finality if the concerns are all about the process wonkery and not whether or not the actual content is useful. Legacpac also had a number of page moves that were deleted via CSD which absent admin tools will be harder to detect. I'm not sure about whether this should be restored based on the process arguments or not. Nothing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita discuss whether or not the content should be kept. I'd suggest maybe an RFC on the matter but I'm not sure we need anything more than to put in more details about restoration versus restoration in lieu of WP:DRVing a discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

Legacypac is canvassing by mentioning this discussion:

• At User talk:Ymblanter
• At User talk:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong
• At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• At Articles for deletion/Claire of the Sea Light

Though it is only likely to draw attention to their inappropriate actions, it is still ill-advised.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am becoming less and less impressed with Legacypac's behavior as this dispute drags on. This is not a matter to be settled on noticeboards, but by reasoning and compromise. I know part of the problem is that we don't have an omnibus draft proposal yet, but come on man. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, some people know how to get to the right result in the wrong way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm just really tired of being dragged to ANi several times, having false accusations and threats hurled at me and the constant insults and assumption of bad faith. I'm only interested in improving the encyclopedia - and enjoy learning about diverse random topics. The hypocracy and game playing of a small group of editors has gotten out of hand, so ya, I fought back in the venue they chose (ANi). I'm happy to see all these threads closed up and to get on with improving the project. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearing out others' old userspace drafts is not improving the encylopedia. Showing contempt of the project processes by moving pages kept at MfD, or worthy of keeping in userspace, to mainspace where they are not ready, is destructive to collegiate editing. Have you adjusted you preferences to publicly record you CSD nominations? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Clear WP:CANVASSING. And, ofc, he still hasn't done enough to warrant administrative action. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Legacypac

• Personal Attack: "Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy." Edit summary: "ridiculous troll". They have recently previously been warned about such behavior: Warning from Athenean.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Facepalm Can we all just take a break from new MfD noms for a bit? Legacypac? Please? I swear, this frustration can go away if we can work together. Those stale drafts aren't going anywhere in a few days that they weren't going over the past few years. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• I actually stopped all stale draft work for several days and Godsy started restoring them. The quote above should be taken in the context of his own comment I was responding to [204]. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comments Legacypac, in the subsection above this one, stated: "I'm only interested in improving the encyclopedia". Near continuous personal attacks that several editors frequently experience from the keyboard of Legacypac say otherwise. Myself, I've been putting up with his biting, rude, and totally uncivil comments for months now (I can provide diffs for same if asked, but it will take some digging). The most recent examples are as follows:

Referencing me, LP said, "the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months." No diffs, nothing to support his allegation, just a personal attack. It goes on from there: "Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Again, nothing to support such a strong claim, but to just out of the blue state I am a sockmaster for another editor? Outrageous. He then continued with the baseless allegations and accusations by saying, "this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with.".

Again referencing me, "WV loves one way interaction bans." Still nothing to support his claim. It's another blatant, unwarranted attack.

At LP's talk page: "It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser?" No proof, just accusations. This is in a thread at his talk page found here.

At a civility AN/I complaint filed on Legacypac in February 2016, I responded with some commentary. In what appeared to be retaliation for my comments, Legacypac then started a subsection on me. Definitely one of the weirder moments I've experienced in Wikipedia but a definite attempt to distract and deflect on Legacypac's part. There was quite a bit of substantial evidence and discussion there, most of Legacypac's responses were more uncivil behavior (although not the worst I've seen from him). The AN/I was closed by Ched as no action, but he did give the following warning: "At this point (and late date) there's not going to be any administrative action taken. All participants are reminded to think before they speak, and review before they click save page. All you folks, boomerangs and all, should now be aware of the fact that better behavior is expected. — Ched :  ? 07:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)" Report can be seen here.

I, for one, am sick of seeing his nastiness continue unfettered and unchallenged by anyone other than non-admin editors. Hoping that an admin will take notice of this and seriously consider doing something that will make a lasting impression on LP. The community doesn't deserve the uncivil treatment he dishes out regularly. Seriously, how long do we all have to put up with this kind of behavior? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the aforementioned user who has been accused of being a sockpuppet, and I agree that LP's personal attacks have reached a point where sanctions are in order. LP has had reports filed against him in the past for bullying, and narrowly escaped an ISIL topic ban. This simply goes to show that he is not a kind editor, as well as everything else he has said which is very well outlined in Winkelvi's report above this comment. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So not surprised. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• noting that I've received the ping; however, I am not active enough right now to make any judgments. I'm also not up for doing the research. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban Legacypac from userspace

"All of Legacypac's AFD nominations have been reversed and the CSD deletions have been restored. It's clear that there is ZERO support for any of Legacypac's antics and a topic ban is the only thing that can be done so that Godsy isn't wasting more time saving us from alienating all these editors. All of Legacypac's AFD nominations have been reversed and the CSD deletions have been restored. It's clear that there is ZERO support for any of Legacypac's antics and a topic ban is the only thing that can be done so that Godsy isn't wasting more time saving us from alienating all these editors. '— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.193 (talk • contribs) 23:55, April 3, 2016 (UTC)'" assuming good faith,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Legacypac's reckless moving of userpage drafts to mainspace, drafts that are good drafts that could become article but are not ready for mainspace, is disruptive. There are a clear lack of consensus on what to do with old drafts. The decision is not binary, the consensus decision making process therefore needs more time and effort on finding a process acceptable to all. Legacypac's wilful continuation of bold moved roundly criticised is contrary to the process of consensus.

At a minimum, Legacypac must commit to recording all actions in moving or seeking deletion of others' userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" This attitude expressed at MfD is combative and WP:GAMING, and needs to be repudiated. At worst it is abuse of process and disrespect for consensus, at best it is a change in policy to allow use of XfD to force other editors to fix things on a short timescale. I dispute that the topic challenged has no potential, but it is definitely not ready for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE - The 166.176.58.193 IP, is merely the latest in a line of 166 IPs by an evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And blocked as such. HighInBC 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

MFDs/Drafts/behaviour & conduct, etc

Recommend ya'll take your collective concerns to Arbcom. It doesn't appear as though the community is capable of solving these complaints here. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd support that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to

John Carter (talk · contribs) recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by posting on my talk page while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[205][206][207][208] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? HighInBC 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and User:Sturmgewehr88 between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under an IBAN with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably these two concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.

Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([209]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose IBAN I am not seeing anything mean spirited here. The links you give show John either talking about articles or explaining how Wikipedia works. You "banning him" from your talk page seems to be in response to reasonable comments. If we are to CBAN based on two people being in the same places then we need a lot more evidence than has been presented. HighInBC 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• WP:KEEPOFF is relevant here (though sadly underdeveloped even as far as essays go). Telling someone to keep off your user talk page is rarely helpful, and when done unreasonably, can lead to non-enforcement of that "ban". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. If you don't have a good reason to tell someone to go away then it is hardly harassment if they say something to you later. Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order. In both of those links where you tell John to go away the comments being made are measured and reasonable. HighInBC 15:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: He showed up at an ANI thread I started about his friend and deliberately misrepresented the dispute by pretending it was already under discussion on DRN. He engaged in off-wiki contact with ... someone who apparently really doesn't like me and then when I asked if it was the same site-banned user who had been posting my personal information all over the internet (and was at that time still actively engaged in emailing anyone who got in a dispute with me on Wikipedia, from a sock account -- email me if you want the details) he repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying as "of course someone without a publicly disclosed email must be engaged in sockpuppetry" (???) even though I explained my concern to him over and over again. He suddenly showed up on an article I was in the middle of rewriting and started trolling the hell out of me over one word in the lead, despite multiple users telling him to cut it out, and then when he didn't get his way on the talk page he opened an ANI thread (again: you say he was discussing article content, but ANI is not the place for that). Half the time I cannot make head or tail about what his beef is with me, and the only reason I can think of is that he is deliberately being antagonistic. When I told him to stay off my talk page he didn't until told more firmly to stay off, and then he came back again later, while logged out, and posted an inane non-sequitur apparently just to get another rise out of me (seriously -- look at what User:Curly Turkey and I were discussing, and then try to figure out what JC's contribution to the discussion was; if you can, then you understand the content of my talk page better than I do). And he has been stalking my edits to boot! What more evidence do you need? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't convinced when Hijiri first started telling me that JC was hounding him, but after a couple of months of seeing him showing up everywhere—and often making bizarre comments like the one pointed out here—I'm convinced. I have no idea what a solution is, but I'm positive that he didn't show up at Hijiri's talk page to honestly be helpful—he obviously dislikes Hijirii too much. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More dispute resolution could be a good idea, perhaps with a mediator or request for comment format. Also, essentially agree with analysis by HighInBC, at DIFF, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Dispute resolution about what? John Carter and I do not edit in the same areas, and even in those topics areas where there is a very slight overlap (I edit articles on biblical, Jewish and Christian topics, and JC very occasionally posts on these talk pages) the problem is not that we have a disagreement on content. John Carter followed me around for most of 2015 and reverted a bunch of my edits and caused massive ruckuses on talk pages and here on ANI, and I asked that he stay off of my talk page. He has refused to do so, while hypocritically imposing such a "stay away" restriction on me.[210][211][212][213][214] How on earth would "dispute resolution" solve an issue where there is no dispute other than a non-productive editor hounding a productive one? Further, if both John Carter and I want an IBAN (I think JC's last comment on the issue was I might also request an i-ban of him with me, but he might have said the same thing more recently), why should one not be put in place? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking perhaps informally seeking out someone from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, but hopefully the comment from Drmies, below, will help clear things up and prevent problems in the future. — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: Semi-protect Hijiri's TP longterm, officially warn John Carter that if he posts on Hijiri's TP again he will be blocked. Any discussion worth having can occur on article talk pages or other Wikipedia space. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• John Carter (talk · contribs), if that's you posting on Hijiri's talk page, please stop. You were asked not to and you have no choice but to obey. If you persist, you will be blocked--it counts as harassment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"You have no choice but to obey"? Such an authoritarian command has to be based on the editor being ordered to obey Wikipedia policy or standards, not on what an individual says, even if the individual is an administrator. Please cite the Wikipedia policy that backs up your command to obey. In absence of policy, or an interaction ban, or some other preexisting sanction, I do not think an administrator can make a "do this because I say so, or else" threat. While it might have been socially impolite for John Carter to have made the user page post (if he did it), the post itself had a legitimate purpose and was not offensive or harassing under the Wikipedia definitions of offense or harassment. I accept Hijiri 88 feels the post to be harassing (which should be reason enough for John Carter not to repeat it), but I think harassment as a sanctionable offense should not be based on an individual editor's standard of offense or hurt feelings, but on accepted group standards expressed through Wikipedia policy. Without some sort of harassment within the post's content, or an intent to harass through the act of posting, policy does not exist that allows an editor ignoring a request not to post on a user page to be blocked for not following that request not to post. Or as HighinBC put it "Harassment involves being harassing, not just failing to obey some made up restraining order". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender and Drmies. People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so. I'm hoping HighInBC and MSGJ are taking note of this. - ^theWOLFchild 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me you are welcome to do so at my talk page. HighInBC 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do. - ^theWOLFchild 16:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying "People need to stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so" (a statement which I agree with) is very different from saying "People must stay off other user's talk pages when requested to do so". The latter is what Softlavender and Drmies appear to be saying, and I think it is not a position supported by Wikipedia policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I-Ban, however... An I Ban seems like unnecessary overkill,. That said a request by an editor not to post on their talk page has always been treated as something close to posting a "No Trespassing" sign with your name on it. In all but the rarest of circumstances such a request should be scrupulously respected. Failing to do so absent a very compelling reason has generally been treated as a form of WP:HARASSMENT. It may not be their private property but the community has long recognized the right of editors to some degree of control over their own user and talk pages. If John has been posting on the OP's talk page after being asked not to, he needs to stop. Period. An apology, on this page, not the talk page, would not be out of order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am striking my opposition to an I Ban. Based on more recent comments from both parties I now believe it appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I should specify that the reason John Carter is not supposed to post on my talk page is that he and two or three other users put me through a lot of crap last year, to the point where I started to hate logging in and seeing that I had new messages, because I was worried about what new trickery they were up to. I'm largely over that "complex" by now, but it was still very disturbing to log on one morning last week and find that not only was John Carter back editing (and therefore potentially back to inflict more nonsense on me) but had posted on my talk page while logged out. John Carter knows the crap he put me through, and knows I don't like interacting with him, and he has been harassing me at this point for over a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. The only issue here is that it is alleged that he has posted on your talk page after you asked him not to. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment This seems to me an attempt at continuing the irrational and frankly paranoid behavior that caused Hijiri to be sanctioned in the first place. I would also point out that there was no visible attempt on his part to notify me of this discussion on my user talk page, which is, actually, required, even though I have had to twice request him before to stay off my user talk page, and he seems to continue to ignore those requests. (Note: Actually, that is wrong. He did give such a notice, but started the post with a gratuitous and unnecessary request, which I believe could it itself not unreasonably be seen as being a continuation of his apparent absolute refusal to abide by my already repeated request to stay off my user talk page. Also, I suppose, maybe that requirement does not apply to people as exalted as Hijiri. I believe the issue here is the ongoing pattern of what I consider frankly insane conduct on the part of Hijiri, and I believe that it might not be unreasonable to request some sort of sanctions against him for this conduct on his part. I commented on two discussions at the talk page of the Bible project, because I watch that page and the WP:X noticeboard, where I saw the discussion listed. Of late, I have been spending most of my time gathering material for pages for Category:WikiProject prospectuses and Category:WikiProject libraries, and it is easier to do that without distractions. But I have reason to believe that the ongoing irrational behavior of the original poster here could be seen as being very reasonably grounds for further administrative action against him, particularly considering his refusal to adhere to my repeated request to stay off my own user talk page and the grossly inflammatory and unnecessary nature of the comment he added to the ANI notice despite having been told twice already to stay off my user talk page. Also, if anyone is interested, I would be willing to forward to them an e-mail I received from Hijiri, after my repeated requests to him to stay off my userpage, whose sole purpose seems to have been to tell me he wouldn't be stupid enough to do something. Evidently, sending such an e-mail to get around my request to no longer receive comments from him is something he doesn't consider so stupid. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of hurting my own mental health (again), I'm not going to respond to or even read most of what I guess is another string of lies and deception in the above long comment, but in his edit summary he insinuated that I didn't notify him of this discussion, an obvious lie. I'm done putting up with your bullshit, John Carter. Stay the hell off my talk page, stop following my edits, and stop talking shit about me all over the project (and via email). Just stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, to my eyes, the single source of bullshit here is you. First, despite your evincing what some might see as your opinions to the contrary, you are not in divine, absolute control of everything. You cannot demand that everyone do exactly what you say, while at the same time acting in the irrational and counterproductive way you so regularly do, which can also be seen by your similar refusal to address the concerns of myself and another in the ArbCom case which led to your current sanctions. Refusing to deal with reality does not make it go away. I am more than willing to see the end of your own paranoic ranting myself, and have been since the first time I told you to stay off my user talk page. Under the circumstances, I think the most reasonable thing to be done here would be for you to display the capacity to engage in reasonable conduct yourself, something which I think has been rather visibly lacking from you for some time. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you go folks, two characteristic examples of the language of John Carter. Notice first that he missed the notification of this discussion on his talk page and decries Hijiri for it. He also bashes Hijiri's characher numerous times (irrational, paranoid, insane, etc) and flat-out lies about Hijiri's past editing and sanctions to make him out to be a villain (can he not tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese after being so deeply involved in that dispute?). He acts like this is all about him being a victim, never recognizing that this is about him posting on Hijiri's talk page. He demands numerous times that Hijiri must stay off of his talk page, but later accuses Hijiri of thinking he is God for demanding the same! And of course he finishes with a holier-than-thou sermon on conduct. I just wonder if anyone else took the time to read all of his posts and notice the same things that show up in pretty much all of his posts. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it surprises nobody that

• Support I Ban for both parties and propose 30 day block for Hijiri88 for grossly uncivil commentary on this forum and using it as platform for attacking another editor in a manner that is completely out of bounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, I said "bullshit". This may have been a bad call. I apologize for any offense my use of foul language caused. This was not my intention. John Carter just has a habit of bringing out the worst in me (indeed, he seems to enjoy doing so on a semi-regular basis), which is why I told you of all the nonsense he put me through last year. I should have said "obvious and demonstrable lies". But John Carter said the same about what I said, including the word "bullshit" (immediately above). The question is whose accusations are demonstrable. I have provided evidence that John Carter has made up stuff about me (I'll search for the diff where I specifically pointed out to him before he posted below that he and I interacted on the Historicity of Jesus talk page back in 2014, if you need it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• weak support I-ban and sanctions as per the above, although I have questions about how it might deal with questions of effectively banning individuals from discussions. Specifically, Hijiri has only since his topic ban from Chinese topics shown any substantive interest in Christianity, and honestly I can't rule out the possibility that his more or less newfound interest in that topic might not be a form of "reprisal" on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How am I supposed to be civil when John Carter keeps lying about me like this? I have been editing Christian topics for years and I have never been topic-banned from Chinese topics! The above looks like a not-so-subtle way to try to get me sanctioned for violating a topic ban to which I was never subject, as I have started editing much more in a certain topic (Chinese culture) since my recent topic ban. John Carter has been making my Wikipedia life miserable for a year, and now I am being threatened with a block simply for reporting on it and responding in a (pretty reasonable, given the circumstances) fashion to his continued harassment. If someone can demonstrate that John Carter has not been lying about me and harassing me for the last year, including in this very thread, please do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to conduct yourself with a minimal level of decorum then you might want to consider finding another project to work on. Because the kind of invective you have been throwing around here is not acceptable and if you persist in this behavior it is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I said "bullshit". John Carter also said "bullshit". John Carter told a long string of lies about me, with the intention of bringing sanctions down on me. He has not provided any evidence of his accusations, and I cannot be expected to let them stand. I have already apologized for my use of foul language. But the harassment and pathological lying also need to be dealt with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly clear that you just don't get it, and I am starting to doubt if that is correctable. Civility is not limited to the use of gutter language. I stand by my recommendations above and am going to move on unless something actually new comes up on this thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it to do with me accusing John Carter of lying? I provided evidence. Is it to do with my "thanking" you for an edit that appeared to be dismissive of me? I didn't take it that way -- you made a reasonable point, and I didn't see the point of continuing discussion further beyond indicating that I appreciated what you said. Is it to do with my going on and on about the mental trauma John Carter put me through? You are supposed to assume I am telling the truth, and if you want more evidence, I can provide it to you (preferably by email, for the reasons outlined below). Is it because of something else I said? If so I will try to work on it, but simply saying I am uncivil and linking to a policy page I have probably read a dozen times over over the years is not helpful. I know I have had a lapse in civility. It is because John Carter has put me through a tremendous amount of ... painful experiences, just remembering it makes me very upset, and has already caused me to lose several hours of sleep over the past week (fortunately I'm a school teacher in Japan and am on holiday at the moment). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) And the record of the Arbitration case from last year at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 and related pages rather clearly demonstrates that throwing invective, possibly virtually any time anyone questions him, seems to be perhaps one of Hijiri's more persistent habits. And the primary b.s I see being thrown is still from Hijiri, and his as yet completely unsupported accusations about me. I am more than willing to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests it, other than Hijiri of course, for verification. Also, as per the evidence page I linked to above, Hijiri himself has a rather well documented history of making life miserable for others, including accusations of sock-puppetry from the beginning of editing, as per TH1980's evidence on that page. I believe that much of this is due to his repeated insistence that someone who has contacted me regarding his conduct is a sockpuppet of someone he had previous trouble with. For what it is worth, I myself went through every step I could to determine independently the identity of that person, and find that the likelihood of his being the same person as Hijiri's earlier stalker is pretty much nonexistent. I also have some reason to believe that the ArbCom itself was aware of the identity of the person I had been in e-mail contact with at the time of the arbitration, and there is nothing in the results of the arbitration to indicate that they considered Hijiri's allegations of sockpuppetry by his former stalker worthy of direct consideration. And, if someone wants to talk about unsubstantiated allegations, the worst ones in this matter are Hijiri's repeated insistence that, apparently, only that former stalker could ever disagree with him. A position which, I believe, is ridiculous on the face of it. Regarding use of "gutter language," I think even a former arb somewhere has said on a userspace page that in at least some rather extreme cases it is appropriate to call something "bullshit," or "ridiculous," or similar, and I personally believe that discussion of Hijiri's conduct and apparent deeply-held beliefs may well be one of them. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Yes, civility is more than just the use of "gutter language"; does calling someone "insane" breech civility? Or any of the character-bashing John Carter has continuously done since his first post? Or that inflammatory lie that Hijiri never editied Christian articles before and got TBANned from Chinese topics? That last one especially, considering the deep involvement he had with Hijiri, calls either his competency or integrity into question. He should share any sanction placed on Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I would think that in this particular case, when I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE, i personally would not think so. In this case, it is the most accurate, if blunt, description of the individual in discussion possible. And it will be noted in the numerous previous discussions regarding Hijiri that roughly synonymous words have rather often been used to describe Hijiri. I guess it should also be noticed that Sturmgewehr88, whom others have in the past accused of engaging in almost knee-jerk defense of Hijiri on a regular basis in the past, keeps up one of his habits, of himself making accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Also, I think it would be interesting to anyone involved to see him comment, I forget where, in the ArbCom case to the effect that he couldn't find anything which indicates people are responsible for their own actions here. Such a comment might be very interesting to note in this instance. Also noting the obvious and rather transparent inflammatory lie made by SG above, in which he grossly misrepresents my statement to indicate that I said Hijiri has never edited in the field before. I challenge him to, before engaging in further hysterical accusations, to perhaps read the comments of others and not misrepresent them. I said he has shown litle interest in the field, not that he never edited it before. In my history with you, SG, I have to say that I have yet to see you demonstrate much if any capacity for engaging in useful discussion youself, and that you have, as per an e-mail you sent me which I forwarded to ArbCom in the case mentioned above, had to seek help from Hijiri before starting an ANI in his defense. I also note that SG has had to be told to stay off my user talk page twice as well, apparently, like Hijiri, not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

making accusations without any evidence whatsoever John Carter, just drop it already. Ample evidence has been provided that I edited Christianity- and Bible-related topics long before my recent topic ban, and even interacted with you on such pages, and that my recent topic ban is on Japanese, not Chinese topics. Maybe you just forgot about all of this, but your continuing to claim that you were not forgetful but in fact correct in your accusations indicates that you are acting in bad faith. Why did you choose to randomly replace "Japanese" with "Chinese"? Why specifically "Chinese"? Unlike Christianity/Bible articles, I actually hadn't been editing China-related articles with any frequency before December. Were you following my recent edits and planning to get me blocked for violating an imaginary topic ban on Chinese topics? Did you really think the blocking admin wouldn't review what my topic ban actually says before blocking me? And did you really think you could get away with this blatant lying?

And could someone please explain to me why I am the one being threatened with a CIVIL block when John Carter says things like I personally very, very much believe the individual in question is paranoic, which generally qualifies as insanE and insulting the intelligence of other users (not being perhaps bright enough to understand it the first time, which might be yet another common characteristic beyond the 88 that they share)

Also, I'm not going to read much into it, but John Carter is aware that false accusations of neo-Nazism have been made against myself and Sturmgewehr88 because of our username. John Carter is perhaps not aware that other users have been blocked for two months for calling me a Nazi. I was logged out at the time, though -- I was not editing logged in because of a chilling email I received from another user who has also since been indefinitely blocked by Drmies. I don't see what benefit JC sees in bringing up our usernames yet again. (Also, I wanted to point out yet another incidence of me editing Bible-related articles in May 2014. Thing is, I think John Carter and I actually agree on most articles related to Christianity, so I really don't understand why he refuses to cooperate with me, and instead insists on denying that I ever edited articles related to Christianity, when he knows that's an argument he can't possibly win. Also, note that in the thread linked, I indicate that I am intimately aware with the contents of Christine Hayes' 20-hour lecture series on the Old Testament. I sure went to a lot of effort to cover up the fact that I'm not really interested in Christianity/Judaism/Bible-related topics, what with watching an re-watching YaleCourses video series over a year before my conflict with John Carter even started. Apparently I have magical foresight and am so obsessed with wikistalking John Carter that I sunk hundreds of hours into intense research of the topics John Carter is interested in and I am only pretending to be interested in.)

Also, can I add that calling WikiProject Bible -- and particular discussion of the Hebrew Bible -- a "Christian" topic is Christocentric and offensive to Jews? I know a lot of Christians (and non-Christians who live in Christian countries) tend to forget that that the Hebrew Bible, including the Book of Psalms, is a Jewish and not a Christian text, so this is probably a good faith mistake, but I would ask John Carter to kindly stop using this language.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be becoming yet another attempt by Hijiri88 to post incredibly long wall-of-words comments without directly addressing the concerns or statements of others, something that has been repeatedly noted as being almost standard operating procedure from him. I do not remember having ever said you never edited articles relating to Christianity, although that now seems to be two people who are making that accusation. I remember having said you didn't edit them, and, honestly, your record of editing history seems to indicate you don't edit them frequently, perhaps less frequently than some other topics. Granted, it is always hard to respond to someone who states in their own responses that they haven't actually necessarily bothered to read the comments to which they are responding and/or will not address the matters those comments raise. And, for what it is worth, personally, at least in the context of this site, I don't particularly give a damn about my own opinions regarding Christianity, although I find it interesting that you appear to be indicating that such is my motivating purpose in editing the topic. My interest is in getting the material as encyclopedic as possible, although I do note the rather apparent attempt to impugn my motivations in your statement. Regarding the completely irrelevant and off-topic comment about indicating that I consider the Bible "Christocentric", well, I noticed that discussion because it was and I think still is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, which I think I mentioned. Jumping to such unfounded allegations as that one is indicative to me of perhaps some people attempting to raise completely irrelevant and unfounded aspersions and insinuations for no readily identifiable purpose. I find it remarkable that once again Hijiri is jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others, a rather repeated habit of his. And, regarding my obvious and apparent mistake in the Japanese/Chinese statement above, I made a mistake there, based on bad memory. Despite Hijiri88's apparent belief to the contrary, other people do at times make mistakes, and cross-examination of others or seeking to find "hidden motives" to determine some conjectural "deeper motivation" where there isn't necessarily any such motivation is a rather frequently noted characteristic of the paranoid. However, my apologies in making an honest mistake. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Of course you provided evidence. As I think can be seen from the e-mail received by me which he forwarded to me, which I myself forwarded to ArbCom, just like in that exchange, you provided the evidence for him to post. This seems to me to very, very seriously raise questions whether he acts on his own particularly often, or whether he simply plays the role of a sort of meatpuppet for you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, John Carter, I was well aware of this discussion well before you were, and had you not posted in the manner that you did, I may well have not posted here at all. I already know that no matter what anyone says or does, you'll continue to character-bash Hijiri and I (and anyone else you don't like for that matter), you'll continue to be a blatant hypocrite (complaining about WP:TLDR in a TLDR post, seriously?), and you'll continue to, in the popular term of the day, spout bullshit. As in 99% of the ANI threads involving John Carter, this one will become a monstrous wall of text that leads to nowhere but the archives. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is I think rather clear that dedfending Hijiri88 is one of your primary purposes in Wikipedia. I am frankly amazed by your comment above that you seem to think it surprising that someone respond to an ANI thread against them. I once again note, although a bit more explicitly this time, that, at least so far as I can see, you have rarely if ever demonstrated any particular grasp of policies and guidelines, no more than Hijiri88 anyway, and that your comment above about how I am engaging in character-bashing in your eyes, which I personally think as the person making the comments in question are more evaluation of the conduct of that editor and the dubious rationality of many of his actions, that your own comment above is to my eyes a much clearer attempt at character-bashing. And, once again, I note how both you and he had to be told to stay off my own user talk page twice by me, which can be seen by the archives of my talk page and your own, and that this could raise some questions regarding basic competency on the part of both of you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I would be tempted to believe that Hijiri88 would accept an IBAN, if it wasn't for the fact that he appears to have difficulty keeping to them (three breaches of previous Iban)]. My two-penn'orth. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I emailed you, as I am not at liberty to respond to the above on-wiki, but I will say that one needs to examine the context -- at least one of those violations was because of frustration that the other party had violated the IBAN by reverting my edits, and I was not able to get any traction by reporting on ANI because John Carter showed up and derailed the discussion multiple times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately am unable to access emails atm. It seems rather bollocks not to be able to use an ANI as neutral ground- in this case, to be able to respond to my comment! Which may, or may not, be unfounded. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion of a potential IBAN between me and John Carter. You referred to one or two prior IBANs, one of which is still in effect. I can tell you that (despite what John Carter said in 2015) Tristan noir was the only one who violated my IBAN with him back in 2013, and Drmies apologized fairly quickly for falling for Tristan noir's fabricated "incident" in which I supposedly violated it. I emailed you the details of some of my later blocks related to the other (still in effect) IBAN, at least one of which was fairly similar. I am not allowed discuss the other party or their actions on-wiki, and therefore am not able to give you the details. Suffice to say the other party reverted my edits, I reported on AN, John Carter derailed the discussion, and (much later, after the same thing happened) I reverted back in frustration. There was a lot more to it, though. Please read my email if you get a chance. If we were discussing the IBAN in question, I could go into detail (but I don't want to -- again, just remembering all the stuff John Carter and his amazing friends put me through causes me to lose sleep). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

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

I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground if and only if the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of irreconcilable differences.

Also, WP:AGF only applies to first-time mistakes, but not repeated vandalism like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction.

As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in English, from Beoƿulf to Cædmon's Hymn. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEAKENGLISH refers to Modern English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is made without evidence, and wouldn't even apply to User:Cedric tsan cantonais if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered more from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade here. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak Serbian at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an encyclopaedia.

Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed his contribs to article talk pages since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist User:In ictu oculi takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am very skeptical about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that clearly aren't there. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of personal attack.

You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is not an admin; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is here. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is not vandalism.

Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.

Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have every reason to believe that we're still not on the same page. First, I never accused WG of forcing me to adopt a name without diacritics; Second, all I'm doing is questioning his knowledgeability, which shall be in no way considered a personal attack — In fact, if this counts as personal attacks, I don't know what doesn't. If you wish to question my knowledge in any field, be my guest.

As for the edit summary you showed, can anyone not suspect vandalism when anyone, anon or not, removes a huge chunk of encyclopaedic content without explaining why?

Also, I do not know the history between you and User:In ictu oculi, but according to your standard, calling him/her a "notorious untranationalist" can also be considered a personal attack.

As for why «those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves» is something I simply can't agree with, WP:NOTHUMAN had made it clear already and I do not plan to re-iterate those points here. I'm not gonna re-iterate anything about presuming good faith, either. But there's one thing that I request you to do: Look deeper into those edit histories. All those IP edits repeated changed the sportive nationality of a player without anything that can be considered as reference. WG himself reverted those edits multiple times but those IPs were simply too stubborn to reason with. The first among those edits might be in good faith, but repeatedly doing that? Maybe you, sir, can presume good faith from those, but the way I see it, those are either vandalism or unconstructive edits.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of treating WP as a battle ground, either. But if those vandalism never happened, neither of us would've been here today. Also, you're making a big mistake by motioning to block me instead of those vandals out there. During my times here in Wikipedia, I dare to say that none of my edits can be considered vandalism. Can you say the same to those vandals out there? I wouldn't think so. Also, why should I be frowned upon just because I demand that all contributors register?

Finally, I don't spend much time here in English Wikipedia simply because my pro-diacritic stance has attracted too much hostility from other editors. So why should I be frowned upon just because the majority of my edits are not on English Wikipedia? I demand an explanation. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said WG "allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names". This appears to be a reference to his username having an umlaut; however, you did not provide any evidence of him actually trying to remove diacritics from other users' names.

I don't know how you failed to notice that my referring to IIO as a "notorious ultranationalist" was a joke when I explicitly said that I was joking in the following sentence. "ultranationalist" is what LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori -- the real anti-diacritic warriors, against whom you never helped us, call him. If you legitimately didn't notice that I was joking, you should apologize to me for your mistake, but even still you should never assume that what I said was meant as a personal attack, even if it had looked like one.

I never said you should be frowned upon just because the majority of your edits are not on English Wikipedia. Please re-read what I wrote.

And despite your own unending string of mistakes, you persist in claiming that the legitimate mistakes of others qualify as vandalism.

If your English level is low enough that you legitimately don't realize that your language is inappropriate and you couldn't understand what I wrote, then we may have a WP:CIR issue on our hands: I generally support users with all levels of English being allowed to edit, but only if they have the humility to admit that they were wrong; you appear to be defensively striking out against anyone you with whom you fail to communicate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I offer you my apology, sir. Please forgive me for not being able to tell jokes from non-jokes. Honest.

In the mean time, I never took on LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori because I never knew they existed. Cédric ^{wants to abolish Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you never knew they existed. That is why you should not be lecturing me about the importance of the "diacritic wars"; I am a veteran of them, and you only showed up as they were dying down. You made your very first edit to English Wikipedia a month after the first of them was blocked, scarcely two months before the second was blocked, and five months before the last. You don't know anything about the "diacritic wars", despite your daring to lecture me on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

@OpenFuture: Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents... Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Uill ju alßo stop prätending yat ye aenglíesc späłing cånväntiöns ðös nawt ehksizt? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Þou have just given me every rēson to believe ðat þou þink I'm just anoðer knok-head hwō just adds diacritics for fun, hwich I have no choiç but to take offenç. I do not just switch up letters or add random diacritics for fun. All my use of diacritics are strictly linguistically and etymologically rōted while WG has publicly admitted that the umlaut in his name is merely a "rock band umlaut". If þou woud like to talk about using plain spelling more often, we coud talk, but I nēd you to wiðdraw or at least rephrase ðis. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So where mine, and it doesn't change anything I said. I'm not going to withdraw or rephrase it. If you insist on not using English standard spellings and hence make your communication incomprehensible to people that doesn't reach up to our knowledge of these characters, some sort of administrative action will be necessary. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just because you want me to switch back to plain English spelling does not mean you can make poor-faith accusations against me like that. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note: I haven't made any accusations I'm a aware of, and definitely not any poor-faith accusations. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais

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

• Support as nom. Also pinging Walter Görlitz, since it would be pretty dickish of me to propose a solution, several days late, to a problem he reported without informing him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Slow down I was pinged but I'm not aware of any of this and I don't immediately see a need to block anyone. I would defer to @OpenFuture:'s view of things. @Cedric tsan cantonais: it would be good if you could reply to Open Future, and say "Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Insulting IP editors is only one of several issues here.

There's also

1. use of gibberish spellings in edit summaries based on a demonstrably-bogus character-count rationale,
2. accusing other users of NPA violations based on his own misreading of their comments,
3. doubling down and refusing to apologize for (2) when it was pointed out to him,
4. violating AGF by accusing another user of engaging in a "crusade" based on one RM from almost a year ago (by the same logic you would be engaged in the same "anti-diacritic crusade", an absurdity I was quick to point out),
5. repeatedly calling edits with which he happens to disagree "vandalism" because they happen to have been made by IP editors,
6. requesting that the admin corps on English Wikipedia engage in some kind of massive anon witchhunt based on something that apparently happened on Cantonese or French Wikipedia,
7. repeatedly referring to this incident on Cantonese or French Wikipedia as justification for his actions, apparently without actually explaining what happened (FTR, I find it highly unlikely that Cedric repeatedly suffered his hard work being "ruined" by "vandalism" -- vandalism is super-easy to revert; more likely, an IP editor repeatedly made well-sourced and reasonable edits that Cedric didn't like; this is why I want an explanation if Cedric is going to keep using dubious anecdotes about foreign-language wikis to justify his actions here),
8. requesting that WG block a certain IP editor for making such a "vandalism" edit, despite WG not being an admin,
9. seemingly accusing WG of trying to change other users' names against their wishes,
10. repeated use of overly aggressive edit summaries, with swear-words and exclamation marks galore,
11. defending (10) with "I was reverting obvious vandalism -- how can you not see that!?" -- clearly either unable or unwilling to get the point,
12. something else that I technically promised not to bring up here unless he persisted, and he hasn't thusfar, but the night is young,
13. refusing to provide an explanation for any of the above when asked,
14. engaging in historically offensive hyperbole (look at his sig); whether or not you disagree with such-and-such Wikipedia content guideline (Cedric apparently hasn't looked at the content guideline he complains about with every post he signs in a while, as it does not say what he claims it says) it is not as bad as slavery,
15. pedantically nitpicking words like "seemingly" and "apparently" in others' criticisms of him in order to dismiss everything they say, and
16. despite clear reasons being given for criticizing his behaviour apart from his attitude toward IP editors, insisting that this proposal to block him is based on a desire to "censor" his views on IP editors.

Most of these look like rookie mistakes, and if a legitimate rookie had made them I would say mentor, not block, but in this case the user has been editing on and off for over three years. Some of them are things that you and I have also committed quite late in our editing careers. But the combination of all of them at this time makes me say a block (without prejudice against unblock, assuming a contrite unblock request, which indicates a full understanding of why the block was made and a sincere desire to do better, is made) is the best option for the community.

And in case it is not clear, my stance on diacritics has not changed in the past three years. I feel the need to clarify this given that little misunderstanding we had on your talk page a short while back. Apparently something in my tone of voice now convinces people that I have turned coat and joined the "anti-diacritic crusade". The reason for the scare-quotes is that, I'm sorry, I am not seeing it as any kind of grand unified crusade since LittleBenW and Kauffner got themselves blocked back in 2013, and Fyunck(click) turned out not to be a massive hypocrite and actually went with the consistent romanization and reliable sources on the Empress Jingū RM around the same time. To quote Basil Exposition, "Austin ... we won."

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Sir, since your accusations full of terms like "seemingly" or "unlikely", I find it nearly impossible to swallow.

Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I said "seemingly" in line with AGF. If I proclaimed definitively that you did refuse to explain yourself when I requested it, when there was still the possibility that you had just misunderstood my request, it would have been in violation. Fortunately for me, your above response indicates that I was 100% correct, and would have been forgiven for leaving out the "seemingly"s. Please, please, please learn to communicate withnother editors. I said the exact opposite of "seek to block you largely because of my stance towards IPs" -- I posted a laundry list of twelve other offenses you had committed, largely against me, that, when combined, appear to me to warrant an indefinite block with possibility of immediate appeal.

And in my experience, accusing other users of "censorship" has never worked out well for the accuser.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I had never committed any offence against you and I do not intend to, so unless there're miscommunications between us, please stop adding more accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The offenses you commit are against Wikipedia. This is not a personal issue. It's not like you can go around and insult one person and expect that everyone else is OK with that, because they aren't the people being insulted. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Yes, you did. I posted one neutral comment above and was met with a flurry of attacks. Of the above, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 were all committed against me within the last 36 hours as punishment for my crime of analyzing the problem as I see it and commenting accordingly. At this point I have no doubt that if you get blocked you will blame me for it and post on your talk page (or perhaps on Wikipediocracy or some such) about how "Hijiri88 blocked you for your pro-diacritic stance", because you refuse to do the damn research and realize that I have a much longer history than you do of defending diacritics on this site. (Also, like WG, I am not an admin; I have no power to block you, so I would appreciate you not claiming that "blocking you" is what I am doing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. Therefore, I simply can't understand why you're still interpreting them as offences against you personally. Just because I'm the defendant here does not mean you can just keeping adding accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". What on earth are you talking about? Where in my above reply to you (or even in my long reply to In ictu oculi) did I even mention personal attacks? All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. There was nothing in your above comment that explained anything about your actions, although you did provide a new rationale for blocking you (see 15). In fact, you have been roundly ignoring every single thing I say. Please address at least one of the 15 points I raised against you in my long comment above. I'll make it easier for you -- I'll put them on different lines to make them more visible for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The interactions so far gives absolutely no indication that Cedric tsan cantonais understands the problems with his behavior, nor has any intention to stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary Disappearance

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

They are not ideological differences. You clearly don't understand my ideology, as you have refused to read my comments. You above very clearly indicate that you have not read User:OpenFuture's comments with any care whatsoever -- where did he/she imply that your "use of diacritics" was "based on bad faith"? This indicates that you clearly have not gotten it, and you will continue your pattern of disruptive behaviour unless you are blocked. Please note that I am not trying to "condemn" or "kill" you -- I want you to read our concerns about your behaviour, to understand our concerns, to apologize and promise never to repeat this behaviour again, and then you will be unblocked and be allowed return to constructive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you're not reading my responses, either. I've already stated that I want to treat linguistic use of diacritics and rock band diacritics (which I don't use) as two things and I've already stated that reduction of my diacritic use to open for discussion, but User:OpenFuture refused to treat them separately. If you look at his message above, the diacritics in his message clearly does not follow any etymological pattern. This implies that he does not understand why and how I use diacritic to abbreviate my edit summaries and that he's treating all use of diacritics indistinguishably.

OTOH, I've already promised that I will stop insulting others and yet you pretend you didn't see those word.

Also, when you talk about offences against you, the first thing I came up with was personal attack.

To respond to some of your accusations:

1. Those are anything but gibberish. Calling them "gibberish" altogether is a give-away that we do not share the same view on diacritics;

4. Yes, that was my fault, and I apologise.

5. Those edits had been previously reverted by other users before I got involved.

7. Just because vandalism is easy to revert does not mean that it doesn't hurt.

9. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

10. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

14. It is disrespecting names that are not of English origins. Therefore, it's bad.

15. You're making the same mistake, good sir.

16. Are you seriously intentionally misinterpreting me or what? When did explicitly say I insisted that this was based on "censorship"? You need to stop making wrongful accusations up.

P.S. I now have reason to believe that we're simply speaking two different languages. And you, good sir, are also making accusations against me based on your incorrect interpretation of my intended-to-be-completely-peaceful words. I never intended to attack or offend you and if I did make you feed offended, I apologise. But I don't think this debate can remain healthy without us understanding what each other intend to say first. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I support use of diacritics when it is accurate and supported by reliable sources. You make up imaginary gibberish spellings of English words, that show your ignorance of many of the points about which you dare to lecture me, such as the correct usage of macrons (they don't turn the letter "o" into /uː/; they almost always mark long vowels, the one exception I can think of being Chinese pinyin, where they indicate a flat tone) and the correct name of the eth (which you inaccurately called a "thorn"). I don't know why you do this -- you said it was because of character count restrictions, which was a blatant lie; it seems to be an attempt to make disruptive edits in order to make a POINT.

4. I'm glad you apologized. Now please apologize for the rest.

5. No, I was referring to the Canadian nationality edit. It was not vandalism, and no one but you called it vandalism. Whether other editors supported your reverting it, or reverted the same themselves, is irrelevant. You clearly have not read and understood what qualifies as WP:VANDALISM.

7. So you are still refusing to give diffs, then? Vandalism is easy to revert, and if you are so thin-skinned that you don't like anons being allowed edit "your" articles from time to time, then you should not be working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

9. Good, but see 4. above. Also, you should apologize to me for earlier claiming that 9. never happened.

10. Good, but see 4. above.

14. Your signature links to a content guideline that you apparently don't like, and likens it to the North American slave trade. This is ridiculously offensive. However, I apologize for misreading the guideline, which does say that diacritics should be avoided in certain circumstances.

15. You ignored every single thing I said in order to nitpick one word that I said in order to be conservative in my criticism of you. Your outrageous behaviour would have easily justified me not using the word "seemingly", as I was 100% on the money with everything I speculated. And, ironically, in your non-response to this problem you are providing further proof that you are intent on dodging the issue. Also, please don't call me "good sir"; it is belittling.

16. "Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship."[215] You posted this 11 hours before somehow completely forgetting about it and claiming only a few lines down that it never happened? Did you really think you could get away with this?

Again, I must say that I have no problem with users with low levels of English being allowed contribute to the project, but they must be humble and apologetic; they should not be aggressively defending everything they say and striking out at other users for criticizing them over their communication problems. If we are having communication problems, it is most certainly not my fault; the only time I used anything other than direct, straightforward English to express myself was when I jokingly/sarcastically referred to In ictu oculi as an infamous Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist and didn't explicitly state that I was joking until the following sentence (although the oxymoron of a "Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist" should have tipped you off even there).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

All the spellings I used *were* "correct" in the same sense that your are. (I have not, however, bothered to make sure it was consistently applied). The point was to show how incomprehensible it gets to somebody who does not know the alternative etymology and pronunciations of the characters in question, toungue-in-cheek. You calling it "rock band diacritics" shows with ironic clarity that you indeed didn't understand all of it, as you think I just added diacritics willy nilly. I didn't. Now, if YOU didn't get it, how do you expect the average person that knows nothing about these things to understand it? That's the point. You think you are being clever, and you have some sort of agenda, but all you actually do is make it harder to understand what you write. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I have to personal agenda. And seeing that I had mistakenly called your use of diacritics "willy nilly", I offer you an olive branch and an apology. I will disappear from English Wikipedia soon after this discussion is closed, but if you wish to kindly let us drink to the love of diacritics, my doors at the Wikimedia Incubator are open to you. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you now understand that you misunderstood my diacritics. I'm saddened to see that you don't realize that others will similarly misunderstand yours. You are of course free to leave, but it's such a silly thing to do. The Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason, you could just follow them instead. But that's your choice, of course. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [216] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [217]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much Calidum for the link) [218]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful hound, and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See User:Lips Are Movin for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making false sockpuppeting accusations to clogging up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he took this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes WP:POLEMIC writings about me on his user page, and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to WP:DOX my country here. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin accepted stuff like [219] and [220] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing for this AN/I here, here, here, here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another policy vio just committed: editing my comments in this ANI here. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another comment and observation: Does MF really want an IBAN? This comment on my talk page and this comment on Chesnaught555's talk page doesn't cause me to think so. The continued responses to me in this filing fall into that, as well. Then there's this comment in the subsection below ("No opposition votes yet, yay!"). It has since been removed by MF. What I am seeing (especially with the "Yay!" comment), is a desire to WP:WIN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it be an issue? Further, this comment from you, "to be at the center of drama for whatever reason" makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Official discussion

• Support - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. This message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, MaranoFan. It was not appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page after the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, Serge, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I know Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am not an admin, Sergecross73! The Support !votes only slightly outnumber the Oppose ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide Support majority later... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - If MaranoFan wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--ML (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Is this enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable here. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [228], this diatribe [229] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [230]. Calidum ¤ 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if Winkelvi sees faults with MaranoFan's editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read WP:CANVAS and WP:ADMINSHOP closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like WP:TPO which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and frequently correct critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [231] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your competence because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, possible boomerang based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. WP:BOOMERANG applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that you get your facts straight. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then Chesnaught555 started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Mandruss. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply informally staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- MrX 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. only (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Changing to support based on this discussion, which clarified the need for this IBAN. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting turn of events. Especially since the original premise for your "Oppose" !vote was "Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting." - and that premise/observation remains the same (as far as I'm aware and based on my own continued non-interaction with MF). I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you have changed this out of the blue, Coretheapple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--MaranoFan (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit as of 09:41, 30 March 2016 proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.

I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.

Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.

I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen here) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [232]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is not wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.

There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, "In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN." No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the previous proposal a year ago by Calidum, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for months. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and highly provocative behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required.  — Calvin999 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle, you are both black.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist.  — Calvin999 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999 Were you joking? WP:KETTLE's existence is ample testimony to this metaphor being widely understood on English Wikipedia, and if you seriously think your being called "black" in this case was about race, then you should be more careful about responding before clicking on the links. In my experiences, calling you a kettle when you call someone else "rude, non-compliant, unwilling to listen and failing to understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia" is a perfectly reasonable argument. (I haven't looked at the rest of the content here, so I'm not sure if you were technically correct; I only posted here because when my browser refreshed after I posted a comment in another thread it jumped around a bit, and my cursor wound up hovering over the word "racist", which peaked my interest.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable Adele song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [233], [234], [235], [236], [237]. And calling Winkelvi a "very placid, calm and peaceful editor" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required.  — Calvin999 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with.". Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, Softlavender. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus" Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into boomerang territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.

"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick" Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

K. Here's one, in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was, "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick". I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: "I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings.", and then further claim that I stated I "...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request" Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Block for MaranoFan whose behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with Fortuna here... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur, Mirela. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: A sub-section, yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Mirela and Fortuna - filed as subsection below. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. SSTflyer 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't see any recent edit warring from me, SSTflyer. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Neither of these editors have clean hands in their interactions with each other, so a two-way IBAN seems to make the most sense. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially agree with WP:BOOMERANG analysis by EvergreenFir (DIFF), and harassment analysis by Chesnaught555 (DIFF), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support an IBAN, but I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. Softlavender's characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of christ... "someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. Drmies, Bbb23, NeilN, Ritchie333: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style." Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to point out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was bending over backwards by calling it a red herring, and the diffs cited by MF were gratuitous and provocative, and appeared to have the desired effect. Clearly you are impervious to reason over this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WV loves one way interaction bans. How many editors has be banned from his talk page now? Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WV is not the problem here. Possible boomerang considering the behavior documented above. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support These 2 editors, despite the well-established truth that nothing productive comes of their relationship, cannot seem to stay away from each other on their own. It is time for the Wikipedia community to take action and prevent needless bickering. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd also recommend an IBAN between MF and Calvin, even more so than the current proposal. Keeping the three of them separated would be beneficial to all three parties. Azealia911 _talk 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Fine with IBAN, and agreed with Azealia911. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan

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

---

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

• Support as co-proposer, if that is a word. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Marano's actions don't especially seem worse than any of the other 3-4 editors involved in this. Unless we're doling out blocks to everyone involved and meddling in all of this, this is not a good proposal. (An iban solves this issue better.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross. An interaction ban would solve pretty much everything, I would hope. Of course, if the ban fails to gain consensus and shenanigans continue - yes, blocks (for multiple editors) would likely be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. MF has done nothing to warrant a block. She was provoked by some comments made about her, but "gossip" does not justify what she is asking. That said, asking for something you're not entitled to doesn't give rise to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion is about an IBAN for WV and MF. That's it. If anything grows out out of this discussion then an IBAN for WV and MF is what is needed.--ML (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - A block is not justified and would only address (roughly) half of the problem.- MrX 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MrX notes, this would solve only part of the problem (though I reckon one-fourth, not one-half). Calidum ¤ 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zero justification. MaranoFan is a good-faith editor who has been trying to do their best. This is a partisan proposal. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, and Ches is no one's meat-puppet. Please stop with the nasty, hateful personal attacks and unfounded allegations against other editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm not here to represent anybody else's views. I have my own, and this is essentially my proposal (two other editors had agreed with it beforehand, neither of whom were Winkelvi). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I would support based on the the reasons given. There is nothing good-faith about MF, but I will agree that she has been trying her best (at being disruptive, rude and disrespectful). I don't think an IBAN would be sufficient as MF just can't help herself.  — Calvin999 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The whole notion of this discussion is laughable. Some admin please speedy archive this. Lolol.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You can't oppose (or support) a block on yourself. It's obvious that you wouldn't agree. You're not even taking this seriously and you are being disrespectful. Also, no admin will help you when you are calling them "some admin".  — Calvin999 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes you can. There are no restrictions on who can vote; I done the same thing with myself in the past. JAGUAR  16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Didn't I ask you to never communicate with me again. (Rhetorical; doesn't require an answer). 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Thats irrelevant, what you said is objectively wrong, and any number of people would have said the same thing if he hadn't. And even that's ignoring the insane odds against this poorly thought out proposal. You're only reinforcing the idea that you're probably amongst the group of 3-4 editors that can't stop with the petty bickering that inspired a call for an Iban in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
          • • It is relevant, shows you are an uninvolved editor. MF wants the IBAN too, so. Several editors here have said Oppose but have written that is is still a viable option to block MF. So it is more than 3-4 really.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification to block MaranoFan, so long as he agrees to keep his comments civil. Lack of evidence and canvassing, while not encouraged behavior, isn't a "blockable" offense to me - provided that he stops the canvassing when asked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose MF has done nothing to deserve this proposition of a block. Calvin on the other hand, well... JAGUAR  15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The feeling is reassuringly mutual, Jaguar. Please grow up and stop harassing me/mentioning me/talking about me. You're coming across like a child.  — Calvin999 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I was just pointing out the fact that anybody can vote in any debate, even if it's a block imposed on the intended user. I don't know how that's considered harassing. Believe me, I would be over the moon if somebody created a sub-thread "Proposed interaction ban between Calvin and Jaguar". JAGUAR  21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You are harassing me by making unnecessary comments. I already asked for an IBAN between us but nothing was done about it.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
        • What, me voting in this discussion is considered harassing? JAGUAR  10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since MF is a good-faith editor, a block for this user is a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose-My vote is probably not needed here, but I'll give it anyway. It is unfair to block only MaranoFan. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MaranoFan, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the Oppose !voters. This will not help your case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This isn't a court case, MaranoFan. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC) And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Good one, NE Ent. Thanks for the initial confusion, the good hearty laugh, commemorating the spirit of the day, and closing this nonsense. Best to you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

See also: § Harassment getting worse

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

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

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

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

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

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please look at this edit in particular [238] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [239]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [240]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [241] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[242]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [243] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.

You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [244] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [245]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [246] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [247] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.

And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.

As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[248]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)

But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [249]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[250] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.

I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [251] especially [252][253][254]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [255]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [256] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

A month ago I was blissfully unaware of Jytdog. Then he caused a car crash at the RepRap project article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [257][258] and this ANI thread. Today he's suggesting I need to get a "Moron Diploma".

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

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

As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with beryllium. He proceeded to 4RR edit war [259][260][261][262] to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the vast numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.

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

Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.

I removed one sentence (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - here is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.

As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has commented there many times; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which he had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.

As I did at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and not follow me around picking fights. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.

About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page here his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I had written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was here. I removed it before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it). His inappropriate comments still stand.

And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.

Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It is true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.

I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Does this look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. here is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-in-the-citations content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Possible trout in response to Jytdog's initial action(s), boomerang for the filer of this report as frivolous and pointy as well as his own obvious battleground behavior that escalated things needlessly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well hello again Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media.) Andreas JN466 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not what he does that's the problem it's how he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is not the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.

Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply wrong? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on acute beryllium poisoning is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is not a positive outcome to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For a complaint about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... WP:BATTLEGROUND-y. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• FFS. Guys, the content looks perfectly acceptable but it does not seem to me to belong in the lede, as it's distinctly niche. Please read WP:LAME, bury the hatchet and move on. We have enough trouble fighting off the nutters without taking lumps out of each other over things where reasonable people might differ. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of CaptainYuge over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that he had decided were unfit to edit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment
  • Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
  • Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
  • Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad (version before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS (version when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You say " I have no desire to be in this discussion. " at Talk: as if that's a good thing. You're great at seagull management, but you refuse to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.

As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an occupational condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.

This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the comment by Alexbrn who aptly stated regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND problems with the filer of this report: "For a complaint about BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... BATTLEGROUND-y." In addition, Winkelvi is correct by pointing out that WP:BOOMERANG could be applicable here regarding the filer for WP:POINT disruption. I've looked over the relevant article history and evidence presented above and agree with Jytdog that these comments DIFF 1 and DIFF 2 on the talk page are disruptive and harm the community's ability to improve the article. Jytdog should be commended for efforts to improve the site with regards to application of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, are you trying to redefine WP:INVOLVED here? You and Winkelvi are behind the most fatuous and obviously biased deletion I've seen at Commons in years: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz_MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility and tone. There's a thoroughly trivial deletion request at Commons that you started, I commented upon, and now you show up here just to cause trouble. Coincidence? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith by the filer are remarkable evidence of further WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, or at the very least, failure to recognize I've already commented in multiple threads on this ANI page in the past 24 hours about many different topics. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So tell us Cirt, just what did bring you to an article on this obscure medical condition? You're fooling no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruption by Andy Dingley

• Update: It looks like Jytdog has chosen to disengage himself from the article Berylliosis. ("unwatching")

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

• 10:49, 31 March 2016‎ -- "restore section - there is no contradiction between these two"

• 15:07, 31 March 2016‎ -- "Restore with another ref"

• 23:52, 1 April 2016‎ -- "You've been told once already. Undid revision 713104471 by QuackGuru"

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

• Classic content dispute. Andy, please stop bringing these content disputes, front-loaded in your OPs with trumped-up unrelated drama, to ANI. This is strictly a content dispute, and resolvable on the article's talk page by discussion, consensus, DR, RFC, whatever it takes. I'm inclined to agree with others that a boomerang is possibly in order because it's the second time in a month or so that you've wasted ANI time on this sort of thing [263]. Softlavender (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Softlavender about WP:BOOMERANG here, especially after reading the close summary at the prior ANI thread cited by Softlavender, where admin Spike Wilbury closed it as: "Content dispute, primarily. ... These ridiculous threads where content disputes are spilling over into AN/I". These frivolous ANI thread filings by the current ANI filer are a waste of the community's patience and disruptive to the project. — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Hengistmate has been deliberately trolling and socking me for years, and has been repeatedly blocked as a result. That is not a "content dispute" and it was thoroughly deserving of ANI. Nor does it have any relation to Jytdog's behaviour here.

If you are complaining of me edit-warring here (despite Jytdog already being at 4RR), then you know where ANEW is.

Cirt, you are only here because of a bizarre deletion request you and Winkelvi are involved in at Commons and both of you saw this as a good opportunity to troll me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pure content dispute, no clear evidence of edit warring submitted by OP (edit: referring to Andy Dingley). In fact, the claim of "4RR" implies that Jytdog violated 3RR on some article. I don't see what article that is. As of the filing of this complaint, on Berylliosis, Jytdog had only performed 3 non-consecutive edits in the previous 24 hours, and one was not a revert as far as I can tell. The claim of edit warring seems spurious as well, or at least unproven. I concur that a boomerang sanction or admonishment should lie, not only for the (I'll assume unintentionally) misleading complaint, but also for the combative stream of responses in this thread. This is a massive waste of time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:I thought the term "edit warring" and "disruption" meant any type of edit warring, not only solely 3RR itself. Surely there is ongoing disruption at the article by the original ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, where I said OP I was referring to Andy Dingley's OP in the top section. Perhaps I should have made my comment up there rather than down here. I've added a clarifier. Anyway, I agree that there's actually ongoing disruption at Berylliosis by Andy Dingley, as you've shown above Cirt. I think that taken with Andy's conduct in the original thread here, some sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And now that Andy has retroactively amended his initial posting to include diffs of a supposed "4RR edit war", we can see that there's a greater than 24 hour gap in the claimed reverts. While the term "4RR" is meaningless (there is no four revert rule), terms like that are almost exclusively used to refer to a violation of 3RR involving more reverts (actually 4RR shouldn't be used at all since a 3RR violation necessarily involves 4 reverts). Someone making four non-consecutive reverts in a 72 hour period hasn't violated 3RR. If Andy intends to prove that those four reverts add up to an edit war, I think we're going to need more than that. Worst case, Jytdog should be told to be careful not to violate 3RR, and that edit warring can be called in the absence of a 3RR violation. I'm more concerned with Andy Dingley's conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

When you complain over a lack of diffs, don't then call to block someone when they give you those diffs! 3RR/24 is a "bright line" for edit-warring. As any of ANEW will inform you though, this is not the only indication of edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't say 4RR when you don't intend to mean the person has violated 3RR, then. The second "R" in 3RR means "rule". When you say 4RR you're implying a rule was broken. I don't see it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley has now followed me to yet another article and his intent to WP:HOUND is clear - here is where he reverted me, and again restoring badly/unsourced sourced content (this time what was sourced, was sourced to Investopedia). I am now requesting a 48 hour block to prevent further disruption and a 1-way interaction ban for Andy with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Followed"? To an article I edited months ago? Don't flatter yourself.

There is no justification in using a valid complaint against a source to start blanking whole paragraphs as well, when they contain simply sourceable, uncontroversial content for which there are abundant other sources.

And what's your excuse for this edit? [264] Sheer carelessness. Which you insisted on doing twice, even when reverted by another editor. You are too blinkered by your desire to Right Great Wrongs to even pay attention to what you're doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have apparently become your "great wrong" to right. I believe you will be blocked and will face an i-ban for hounding me, but we will see. You are continually bringing unclean hands with your editing decisions here; your edits are clearly POINTy and about me, and not about high-quality content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very good at assigning all sorts of motives to other editors. This was a question about your edits here. Why was your (seriously wrong) edit so important that you had to do it twice, over another editor? Have you even looked at what you did here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Angry or not, it is remarkable how often Jytdog is mentioned on this page due to battleground issues. To the point that he even had a ArbCom-case and a indefinite topic ban on his head... The Banner talk 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just like Andy Dingley has his "fans", I have mine. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Andy needs to be encouraged to work on something else. I think a short-term interaction ban will do that. If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term. I'm just not a fan of indef editing restrictions out the gate, and would rather not block a long-term editor when there's another way to convey the message to "Do something else". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A "one way" ban? Why? So that Jytdog can keep awarding me "Moron Diplomas"? So that he can describe adding needed sources as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content"? Or just so that he can keep describing other editors' work as "Garbage content based on garbage sources" and "demeaning to WP"? And this is all from "Mr Clean Hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog starts poking the beehive once a restriction is in place, then we can talk. If there's support for it instead, though, I could see a temp two-way interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I can live with the try-a-short-term remedy approach. I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Agree with Mendaliv, especially "If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term." This disturbing behavior pattern, now across multiple articles against Jytdog, has gone on long enough. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I just reverted this above mentioned edit by Jytdog. I have not scrutined the history of Jytdog nor read the whole discussion above nor looked at the Beryllium dispute, and I am pretty sure they were in good faith when they made the edit.... but if I should judge their contributions on the basis of this sole edit, I should conclude they are a vandal, or at best that they have not the competence to edit Wikipedia. They actually blindly removed TWICE all the categories, the Commons template, the "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" navigation box (in which the relevant article was actually linked), the portal templates, the official website. They were removed with edit summaries saying they are spam while none of these are spam. The supposed (a couple of them seems ultimately acceptable to me) spammy external links had been already hidden using the <!-- --> template. Cavarrone 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix. Yes I didn't catch that my removal of the WP:ELNO-violating external links included the cats and navbox. Thanks for catching that. Another user removed those ELs after you reverted me. Again, my bad on the cat/navbox removals. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 month one-way interaction ban per Medaliv and Cirt. Not much use in making it only 1 week at this point. And keeping open the possibility of revisiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

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

---

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk · contribs)

Topic-banned SPA. Persistent blatant incivility. IMO this response must be the last straw. WP:NOTHERE Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The only edit that isn't immediately obvious WP:ADVOCACY is this one, and this response has me wondering about that. This makes it pretty clear that's what they're here for, but that's before the topic ban. This and this are absolutely unacceptable, and I'm leaving them a message about that.

The incivility started after the topic ban, and although related, is technically a different problem. I do agree that they're WP:NOTHERE and will be indefinitely blocked shortly, but I'm inclined to give another foot of WP:ROPE so as to leave no excuse.

EDIT: I see that some incivility has come up before, but they're now at the final warning for that and for the topic ban. If they cross the line on either and I'm on, I'll block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to waste more rope... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I don't agree. It's been about a week since the TB was enacted, and all that I see in this editor's contribs is some attempts to appeal or fight back against or figure out the scope of the topic ban. I don't think we should consider that as necessarily problematic. I do agree that this editor is probably NOTHERE, but I generally disapprove of the idea of penalizing editors for requesting review of administrative decisions except where there's been a pattern of abusive or vexatious requests (and even then I'm not crazy about the idea). If Beautifulpeoplelikeyou keeps mucking about in content areas connected with the topic ban then absolutely lower the boom. But until that happens—and I think the Rare earth industry in China edit isn't obvious enough to count—we should give another foot or so of rope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

When an admin explains that no, they really *will* enact the topic ban, and as a result gets called a "worthless idiot", that's evidence that the user has absolutely no intention of becoming a constructive contributor. Even fighting against the limits of the ban just shows that they intend to try to circumvent it, or make it smaller by Salami tactics. It is clear evidence of bad faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an argument in there, but in my view it's entirely dwarfed by the problem that we'd have by rendering topic bans not subject to appeal. Things happen. And editors with low levels of experience in administrative matters are going to make mistakes in trying to appeal things. I cannot see enforcing a topic ban solely on the grounds that he disagrees with the topic ban once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Appealing against a topic ban, and throwing insults around you, are two different things. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• comment His incivilities bother much more than anything here. Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They bother me, too, which is why I'm still keeping my finger on the trigger. While I am not 110% in agreement with Mendaliv, I do see the incivility and the topic ban as two issues they're at their final warning on. If they were at final warnings for a couple additional problems, I'd add them up. But right now, it's not enough IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, my personal view on this is that sanctioned editors are expected to kick back against the admins, and we are expected to have a fairly thick skin, but not infinitely thick. In this case I would be wary of taking action unless @Spartaz: asks for it. This is at the outer edges of "mere vulgar abuse", if Spartaz requested a block for NPA then I would support it, but otherwise I'd leave the guy to burn out on his own. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree with Guy, responding to this rather childish behaviour simply validates his narrative and I left it because I'm happy being the better person here. My guess is that they will fade away on their own without need for us to give him more drama to react against. That fading will be quicker if they are simply left to vent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Spartaz: Your points seemed much interesting to me. Being the better person! Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Guy and Spartaz. People get pissed off when they get sanctioned. If he keeps it up, then we can look towards further sanctions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• His mind is being controlled by some electromagnetic torture. Cut him some slack. There are lots of eyes on him now. A new faux pas can garner a block, now that he has been warned on all fronts, but for now just keep an eye out. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would like to see a block at this point. I originally had hoped the user had gone quiet, because they had decided to turn away from Wikipedia, but it's clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The scale of the edits is huge (the user also edits under different IPs), which means the work require to revert them is huge. It's a shame, since the user obviously has the potential to make useful edits. In light of their inability to listen, a block is what I see as the only option. I don't ever recall seeing them make an edit that wasn't reverted? Jolly Ω Janner 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I can almost forgive the edit warring - the IP editor clearly believes that these highly detailed statistical tables are useful additions - but they stubbornly refuse to listen to advice about correct formatting, suggesting that they are not really here to build an encyclopedia but rather to bludgeon away according to their own rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be a fairly long block and a six-month topic ban on stats charts. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• It would be great to get input and/or action from some administrators on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• This issue appears to still be ongoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

New user, same troubles.

Recently blocked user Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs) (see thread) has created a new account: Nouman arbaz khan (talk · contribs), continuing the same behavior, and also writing on the old users user-page, asking to be unblocked. I pointed him at the talk page, but I doubt it will help. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that any assumption of good faith has gone out of the window now. An indef block is in order. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's bad faith, it's lack of WP:COMPETENCE. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I threw out a few blocks, but after seeing a reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adilswati, I think it's time to ping the Old Master, Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Bbb23 has not edited since Mar 15 and has a note at the top of their talk page that they will be gone for an indeterminate amount of time. You may want to ping someone else or maybe another admin will see this and take care of things. MarnetteD|Talk 04:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I thought he was back. Bbb23 should not be allowed to leave the premises. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no one else. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it's just not been the same. GAB^Hello! 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we can summon Ponyo. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You can summon me, but I'm not sure I can be of any help. I have no more information than Drmies (less actually) and I don't know what I'm even supposed to help with. Clearly I am no Bbb23.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit-warring, and vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India

• 117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.242.254.54 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.238.210 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.25 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.19.177 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.248.60.62 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.55.108 (talk · contribs · count)
• 61.2.171.145 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.63 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.16.96 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.199.78 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.194.3 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.53 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.92.31.118 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.21.230 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.241.21.109 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.23.142 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.96.58.145 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.89.239.7 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.197.53 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.215.192.154 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.18.1 (talk · contribs · count)
• 59.99.36.126 (talk · contribs · count)
• 117.213.22.17 (talk · contribs · count)

For the past 5+ weeks they have been repeatedly disruptively editing two articles:

• Social work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Psychological resilience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit-warring and disruptively editing on both articles, and repeatedly vandalizing (yes that is the correct word) Talk:Social work, and also my talk page.

Editors who have been attempting to deal with the IP-hopper include, among others, Jim1138 (who initiated a previous ANI on the issue [see subthread at bottom]: [265]), Cynulliad, My name is not dave, Materialscientist, Cassianto, and Marianna251.

Need some sort of way to deal with it -- either longterm semi-protection (or pending changes) of both articles, or soft rangeblocks, etc. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given both articles temporary semi-protection. It looks like a range-block might be called for but that is a skill I haven't acquired yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd need multiple range blocks, prob not worth it if they're focused on just those two articles. Reminder: pending changes is also an option. NE Ent 21:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, range blocks are unworkable. Semi-protection or PC1 are the options available. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is wikistalking me.

James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:WIKISTALKing me to articles simply to WP:WIKIHOUND my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for white pride against consensus [266]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [267], [268]

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

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, Michelle Fields and Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in anything so far) would be the timing.

That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say block for 24 hours, with a warning that following users you disagree with is a form of WP:HARASSMENT and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

I'm asking for some help on Talk:Spark (horse). While it's clear that Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) is making great progress on this article, it appears he's taken ownership and any other opinions are met with ad hominem arguments [269], [270], [271], [272] effectively saying he's an elite editor and I'm not qualified to edit the article I created.

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

I see a fair bit of boasting, and some belittling of your work which is not appropriate. Where has he said you may not edit in an area?

I think the best course of action would be to simply remind @Doug Coldwell: that we are all volunteers, and even if you have an amazing body of work that it is not appropriate to belittle the work other editors. HighInBC 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin, horsey comment. Doug Coldwell does seem to be belittling Toddst1 for not having DYKs. DYKs are good but are not the reason for writing articles; sharing knowledge is. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Add, the next day: the DYK hook Doug Coldwell is using for the article isn't even accurate. Bull Rock was the first Thoroughbred racehorse in the US, not Spark. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruption?

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

No. Not appropriate, but not worth bringing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I think it's rude, but that's all. If there's some underlying pattern of disruption I'm not aware of, that might be something else, but even then something that mild couldn't be the straw that broke the camel's back in my view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's gotten snippy in the edit summary on this issue, but it seems to be accelerating.[273][274][275] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama Papers

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

I think it's being handled ok, or if anything too conservatively. E.g. the name getting the most press attention is Vladimir Putin, but he's not even mentioned in the wiki article because his involvement was through an intermediary, and the intermediary isn't mentioned either, maybe because he's not a head of state (he is a cellist closely associated with Putin). 173.228.123.194 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of misogyny

During two separate AfDs, Nfitz (talk · contribs) has accused editors of supporting an official Wikipedia notabilty guideline (WP:NFOOTY) of being misogynists.[276][277] He has been asked to withdraw the personal attack twice,[278][279] but is trying to claim that it is not one.[280] and wikilawyering to claim he has not accused any individual editor.[281]. Could this be dealt with please. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. I pointed out a policy I believe to be misogynistic - that I too have been supporting in the past. I didn't make any personal attacks - especially as I included myself in the misogynistic practice we need to fix. When User:Number 57 questioned what I'd said, I clearly pointed out to him that I wasn't referring to any individual. It's a shame that some editors are far more interested in choosing to be offended and their constant wiki-lawyering and red-taping rather than improving the project. I'd like User:Number 57 to apologize for his personal attack against me. I'm sorry if User:Number 57 misinterpreted my statement. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was very clear from the original, pointed comments that the attack was aimed at certain editors. If anyone had any illusions as to the meaning, they were followed up with "I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age". The attempt at backpeddalling is not going to fool anyone (I hope). As for the request for an apology... Number 57 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did not aim the attack at certain editors. I aimed it at the entire project - myself included. To suggest otherwise is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia - and User:Number 57 needs to apologize for violating WP:AGF. If they were not sure, they could have sought clarification - and I'd already clarified that I had not aimed my comment at any individuals before User:Number 57 came here; by ignoring my clarification that I had not targeted any individuals, has very clearly to violate WP:AGF. Could this be dealt with please? Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You clearly stated in the edits that those who defend the guidelines are misogynists. I understand that in some situations we get a little hot under the collar and sometimes speak/type without thinking things through. But yeah, you did write that. Irrespective of whether or not you actually named anyone you cast a rather unpleasant aspersion on those who disagree with your take on this guideline. At the very least that is a breach of WP:AGF. I suggest that you strike the comment and make an appropriate expression of regret over the unfortunate choice of words. Let's all try to act like adults and not drag this out unnecessarily or make more of it than is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I simply meant that anyone who ignores the WP:BIAS and mysogyny issues would be misogynists. As I'd only just raised them, no one had yet defended the issues I'd raised, there could have been no individual I was referring to. I HAD already clarified that I wasn't targetting an individual with my comments - however User:Number 57 chose to ignore that, and still take offence, where none was meant. Then User:Number 57 chose to violate WP:AGF. This is a far greater transgression in my mind, and User:Number 57 needs to apologize or face the consequences. This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal attack and incivil. Nfitz, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It aggregates information from secondary and primary sources and attempts to give them due weight. If those sources are biased, Wikipedia will be as well. Similarly, if a system or institution has systemic bias in its outcomes for something like fame, Wikipedia will reflect that bias as well because notability is based on that systemically biased institution (e.g., Oscars). It's unfortunate, but that's how encyclopedias and tertiary sources like textbooks work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be a personal attack, if I wasn't making a personal attack. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize for wording it badly. I find it quite insulting that other people are telling me what I was saying and thinking, when I clarified my comments BEFORE it came to ANI. As for Wikipedia being Tertiary - we are discussing policy here, not content. Our policy to not allow articles about female players unless their league is fully-professional, knowing full well there isn't the money in the sport to have fully-professional leagues WHEN WE DO ALLOW SEMI-PROFESSIONAL male leagues in standards for other male-dominated leagues (basketball, gridiron, ice hockey) is clear WP:BIAS. If we held the same standards for ANY league of ANY sport, then I'd agree with you. But we don't. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Admits evading block via new, current account

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

---

User:CitiesGamer66 caught my attention by making some pretty strange edits for being so new (account created March 12, 2016), among them being this - his first. Then more of the same user space edits that followed which show a familiarity with Wikipedia (userboxes and the like) a brand new account isn't likely to be making. Then, there was this edit where they !voted at an RfA - also not new user kind of behavior. This, at their User Page however, says it all: "y'all I'm CitiesGamer66(AKA KGirlTrucker87) After my anonymous account is blocked for a week, I decided to create an account to prevent any further notices including indef blocks and bans on Wikipedia." Not a new account, admits to creating the account to evade a block. Unsure what to do other than report it here as I can't go to SPI since I have no idea what their previous account was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see block evasion here, at least not meaningfully. The editor admitted their IP address had been blocked for a week -- but effectively sat the week out with this account, making edits only in their own userspace. I can't say the behaviour was the most optimal, but (for good reason) editors aren't required to disclose IP addresses they've edited from absent really unusual circumstances. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If the individual edited anywhere's other then their own space, while being blocked? then it's evasion. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was not trying to evade an block, all what I did is stay away from Wikipedia for a week, Then created the account after the block expired. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at your userspace is as follows: "I decided to create an account to prevent any further notices including indef blocks and bans on Wikipedia. Your stated intent was to avoid scrutiny and any connection with your blocked IP. So, my question is: on what date was your IP blocked and what IP address were you using when you were blocked? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Per meta:Privacy Policy, the user is not required to disclose that. See Hullaballoo's comment again. No such user (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Was this a block or an autoblock? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything to worry about here. If there are actual problematic edits, post a diff; otherwise, shrug it off and we can come back here if something happens that requires it. KGirlTrucker87, welcome to Wikipedia, and remember to use your powers only for good :). I'd encourage you to contribute to content instead of fighting vandals, at least until you have written or helped write an article or two (not necessarily big fancy ones). Yes we have "rules" but we shouldn't be too preoccupied with them. It takes some practice to know when to care about them and when not to. 173.228.123.194 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

CitiesGamer66 (AKA KGirlTrucker87) explains what happened above, her IP was blocked for a week, she stayed away that week and then came back and created an account. Unless there is evidence that CitiesGamer66 has done something wrong, this should be closed. -- GB fan 10:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor posting links to what appear to be celebrity home addresses as references

I don't think I've seen this one before. Marbe166 has posted links to a search engine purporting to report the home address of two Swedish celebrities. ([282], [283] are the most recent relevant edits) Shouldn't this be suppressed? It's either inappropriately intrusive or inaccurate, and its use really can't be necessary (it's used only to support "relationship" gossip, and if this is the only source available then the claim is OR). The search engine may be publicly accessible, but we've suppressed junk claims available on IMDB, as well as more controversial matters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something to send to OS and see what they want to do with it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon and his treatment on commas before Jr/Sr

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

"Antics"? There has been broad support for WP:JR since the recent RFC. If you believe that Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. calls for a comma, please just say why. What have I done to stress you out so? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was about MOS and usage of content in text. It may not have extended to article titles. Also, I did not know about the RfC, and I was not told about it. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, George. Now you know. I had some time today, and removed a lot of un-preferred commas. Please do let me know if you see any case where there's a reason to put them back. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at the edits, especially on Cuba Gooding, Jr. How is the rule extended to article titles is beyond me. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If, as you claim, WP:JR does not apply to article titles, how do you explain the fact that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies specifically mentions how to handle article titles in four places? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Other parts have to do with how to introduce a person. Also, it's content-based, not title-based. As for commonality, MOS:BIO mentions it briefly without detailing it too much. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• George, in reading Dicklyon's linked note to you, I rather think it's you who's been disruptive. Tony (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How so? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Shall we start with you taking a clear content dispute to ANI after less than an hour and a half / 3 total comments on the article talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It also looks like there's ongoing discussion at WT:MOSBIO regarding how to implement the "Jr." RfC. I think this discussion might work better in the scope of that one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• @George Ho: Will you accept this WP:TROUT that's on offer and allow this thread to be closed so you can all go back to discussing this content dispute in the appropriate venue? Or does this call for a WP:BOOMERANG? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri, due to below comment, I'm afraid closing it would premature at this time. Let's see how it goes... George Ho (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:JR prefers but doesn't mandate the removal of commas. Strictly speaking, the page moves are unnecessary. This isyet another instance of wishy-washy language in the MOS causing grief. It should be consistent one way or the other and hopefully the aforementioned discussion on WT:MOSBIO provides a clear way forward. clpo13_(talk) 06:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but ANI is not the place to discuss that. ANI is where we discuss blocks and bans of disruptive users. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How is Dicklyon not a disruptive type? George Ho (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Especially when he removes the comma during the RM? George Ho (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The only RM I can see is one you opened, to an undetermined future title. If you don't know what the title should be, you can't criticize other users for presenting there proposals and being WP:BOLD. Also, I had no idea there was an RM open because you never mentioned it. Now do you want that trout or not? I strongly urge you to accept the former... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What about this RM? And past requests and one of my reverts, whilst RM discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. was ongoing? George Ho (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the comma was removed from "Robert Downey, Jr." when the RM four years ago said to retain the comma and no further discussions were made in the talk page. George Ho (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

None of those RMs are currently open, and two are over a year old! Are you saying User:Philg88 should be blocked for something he did more than a year ago? You appear to be saying that you want to have a general discussion of our style guidelines on ANI? Or are you blaming Dicklyon for a whole bunch of stuff they had nothing to do with? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What? No, I'm not pinning on Phil. It's Dicklyon's disregard for case-by-case strategy and generalization on other things. If you think I'm out of control, be my guest. And how dare you propose a block on me after I tried to address a user conduct. Giving me a "boomerang", which I don't know what it means until you try to propose a block on me. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want my propose on Dicklyon, maybe an admonishment perhaps? If that's not enough, how about warning? Or encourage Dicklyon to propose instead of boldly moving on all commas? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and you don't know how ANI works? Maybe you shouldn't have come here, then. I offered you the easy way out of being hit with a trout and closing this thread, and you refused. Twice. I explicitly told you you would be hit with a boomerang if you persisted, and I linked to the page for you to read it. The potentially-disruptive unilateral move in the middle of an RM from over a year ago to which you referred above was made by Philg88 and had nothing to do with Dicklyon as far as I can see. I don't think either should face sanctions for what looks like a good faith misunderstanding from over a year ago. You, on the other hand, appear to be deliberately forum-shopping your content dispute to ANI, and trying to antagonize anyone who calls you out on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If I'm too late to let you close the thread, that's fine by me. If you want to close it, go ahead. But I'll be back if the empire strikes back. I swear to you. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Rescinding my latest comment due to unanimous opposition below. If it's not too late, close it if you want. Otherwise, let's hear admins' comments then. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what? If you believe that this ANI is in bad faith, propose an admonishment or a warning on me if you can. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for George Ho - block for 24 hours

Withdrawn by requestor

George Ho (talk · contribs) has been given ample opportunity to withdraw this silly request for sanctions over a content dispute that apparently had only started before he decided to escalate it to ANI, and has refused. His most recent comments, immediately above, indicate that he does not have any solid proposal for admin intervention, and just wants to have a general discussion of Wikipedia's style guidelines, which is not what ANI is for. I say issue a short block and tell him that this kind of escalation is disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn per WP:SNOW. I guess I was the one hit with a trout in this case.（笑） Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose Personally I prefer the no-comma style, but regardless of the underlying merits, in the War of the Comma Crazies no less than in the Middle East, it's critical that a balance of power be maintained lest any one party become unfettered to spread perverse punctuation preoccupation to further parts of the Wikiglobe. A block of anyone might upset this delicate balance. EEng 11:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose - Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punishing for misusing AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC) @OpenFuture: Per SNOW, I'm not going to attempt to defend my proposal and overturn all of the oppose !votes, but if you read the discussion above it's pretty clear that, even after several users telling him, George Ho didn't accept that he was misusing ANI. A short block would tell him definitively that what he did was wrong and discourage repeat offense, something that's highly likely if he doesn't recognize that what he did was not acceptable. I even specifically told GH that what he was doing was disruptive and he should take it back, and he refused to listen -- twice. It would also allow this thread to be closed and for the comma warriors to go back to solving their content dispute (although one of them would have to wait 24 hours). So my rationale was preventative, even if the rest of you don't agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Unless he has a history of misusing AN/I you can't reasonably call it preventative. Sure, he might do it again, but innocent until proven guilty... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose vehemently What is this block supposed to achieve? Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion, and finding consensus is the way forward. This block would be purely punitive, and would have zilch effect. Either stay away from each other, or hash it out without getting too stubborn. Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose The comma wars are, in my opinion, one of the most lame long term wars at Wikipedia. I suppose it would make too much sense to solve the whole thing like we did ENGVAR - leave it as it was first done and keep it consistent within articles. It is unlikely our readers give even a tiny fraction of a damn about this when they come to look something up. That said George Ho is a prolific and good faith editor and a block is not warranted. Even if an argument could be made this ANI filing is inappropriate (no opinion on that) this call for a BOOMERANG is more so. JbhTalk 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Strong oppose. As OpenFuture has said, blocks are preventative not punitive. This is a punitive measure. On a side note, the comma wars looks to be the next in line after the emdash war, the diacritic war, the engvar war... Who posted this? I felt sure that with so many ANI posters opposed to my proposal, at least one must have been make dickish ad hominem attacks against the messenger, so even after withdrawing I was reading these !votes. I was happy -- and frankly quite surprised -- to see not a single DICK comment, but reading the above I sensed a kindred spirit in someone who recognizes the diacritic war as something in the past (Ctrl+F this page right now for "diacritic" to see why I was happy with this), and I would like to barnstar, or at least thank, whoever wrote it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I think it was User:Blackmane...Lectonar (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri88: Indeed it was. Forgot to sign, thanks @Lectonar:. Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oppose, GeorgeHo is commenting on a possible misuse of removing commas from articles, as the closer of the RFC said that commas on Jr.Sr. could be grandfathered on older and feature articles. A block makes little sense when someone brings up a legitimate issue. Randy Kryn 13:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Close nothing here In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The first article name change does not appear to be controversial - it occurred 7 months ago and despite being an active article, there is nothing in the edit notes or TALK PAGE to suggest any controversy or disagreement until yesterday.
Penbat suggested a name change yesterday on the TALK PAGE and he implemented the change 5 hours after the change was contested and became controversial. I reverted the name change pending consensus.

Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wiki-psycs point is irrelevant. There was absolutely no discussion before the move on the talk page and no WP:REQMOVE - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Setting_boundaries&diff=677100382&oldid=677070465 although he did post this on the talk page 1 hour 21 minutes afterwards - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387 --Penbat (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did a major rewrite and documented the workback in 2015 so that other editors could follow. Why are we here? What are you asking for?

Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant.--Penbat (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:RM is all I want but it seems unreasonable that I have to initiate the WP:RM, not User:Wiki-psyc, and have to make the case to go back to the status quo when there was no discussion or WP:RM before the first rename on 21 August 2015. I am not sure why time is a factor. Substantive changes were made by User:Wiki-psyc just before the rename as part of a package, briefly documented after the event here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setting_boundaries&diff=677106945&oldid=677100387. I was never happy with the original rename but have only recently taken issue with it as I have just got round to looking into it in depth. Just because I have not intervened earlier did not mean that I approved - it was presented as a fait accompli. Changes in the article since then have not been particularly substantive but anyway I fail to see why it is relevant to the naming of the article. The basic character of the article has not changed significantly since then. No other editor has expressly supported User:Wiki-psyc's edits or the rename. Edits by other editors have been relatively minor.--Penbat (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Had you reverted the name change after it was originally moved last year, I am sure Wiki-psyc would have been happy to go through a WP:RM. However since it has stood with no contest for months, the status quo has changed. It doesnt matter that no one has expressly supported it, no one has opposed it for months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment getting worse

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

A user tried to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of a certain Kaz (who he suggested is a pedophile) but even though the SPI was thrown out he will not stop calling me Kaz. In fact he is simply gathering more friends to join in the mockery. Please advise. I have asked him to stop dozens of times. I have made clear that I find the term offensive but he just gets worse. He also calls me autistic and says I have Asperger's syndrome. If I complain about it his friends say I am being disruptive. They canvass each other, hound me, harass, troll, spin-doctor everything I say, revert edit war together. It really is quite vicious. Is this some kind of hazing-style initiation-rite which every new user on Wikipedia has to go through? Isn't four months enough? How long does it go on for? YuHuw (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You should collect diffs as evidence. You don't even mention who is doing this (although I guess I can found out from the previous ANI case, above, where this probably should have been posted. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)YuHuw: You need to provide WP:DIFFs as evidence for your claims. You've been told this repeatedly.

Other users: See above thread, "YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:". Among other things, in said thread, he said "By the way, this IP [284] was yours too wasn't it Ian?", referring to an IP address that is behaviorally similar to him and Kaz (reverting Toddy1 in articles relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth), and obviously so for anyone involved with this. There was no competent, good-faith reason to make such an accusation. See my talk page for more examples of his behavior (addressing by the wrong name, changing the subject when asked questions, and attributing bad-faith reasons to others no matter how many good-faith explanations have been provided). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely it's User_talk:Неполканов. He states he belives YuHuw is a sock of someone up here in this report. However as of the the latest SPI report filed against YuHuw that was proved as negative. KoshVorlon 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please look at this to assure that the SPI closure was very subjective and the admin that closed it has no objection to reopen it due to constantly growing number of evdences that YuHuw's POV is unique Kaz's (Kazimir Yusef Hubert won Staufer) POV. The additional evidence was supplied by Yuhuw even yesterday. He supplied additional, unique for Kaz argument connecting between Johann Reinhold Forster and Karaites.Please refer the following Google results to assure that the only site claiming the same is Kaz's Crimean Institute widely discussed in previous SPI rounds. Other terms used by Yuhuw(e.g Qaraimizers) also used only by Kaz and nobody else in the world. I already mentioned it in the SPI and after that/ Also the really unique disrupting Yuhuw's behavior can be explained by Kaz's mentality, defined as significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests together with relatively normal language and intelligence. So I kindly ask to consider the Yuhuw's CU re-opening. I am sure that many users will join this apply. I may supply again required details on demand Неполканов (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, more of the same sniping. I can't determine whether anyone is editing against consensus, as I can't figure out what the consensus is, regarding these topics. Repeating what I already posted above; this section is a fork of that. Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User inserting contact details into articles

• See history. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I notified them for you. [285] Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I contacted the Oversight team regarding their edits, including one just after this ANI notice was posted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel like this deserves some kind of award. Dumbest vandal of the month. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information

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

---

Occurring on Amaras Monastery. User has been warned about actions before. Nocturnal781 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing since user is now blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

user Chilangahiphop and promotional ownership of Wang Ramirez

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

---

• Chilangahiphop (talk · contribs)
• Wang Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Longterm single purpose account. Persistent addition of copyright violation and promotional content. I asked for assistance a few hours ago at the BLP noticeboard, but there's been no response, then reported at AIV, where it was recommended that I open a thread here (By now, I'm wondering which is more exasperating, dealing with the account at hand or Wiki bureacracy--this could have been put to rest with minimal fuss this morning). The article is a show biz puff piece, but the apparent COI account needs to be addressed before it can be brought to encyclopedic guidelines. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I removed some obvious promotalk and issued an "only" warning--since I'm a Dr. and you're an IP, my warning counts more than yours, of course. Maybe. Let's see if they get the message now; if not, it'll be a block for promotional editing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Dr. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User talk page spamming at FLC

• Inside the Valley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Relevant DIFFs, below:

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

Thank you,

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