Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Stalking

WP:Wikihounding is:

the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Here's a textbook case:

1. User:Travelmite opened an account in January 2015, making 92 edits, mostly on two days, where he added articles to a category using an existing list, and shuffled text around in an article. See [1] and [2] for examples, here for the complete list.
2. At the end of January 2016, this account's behaviour abruptly changed from making trivial edits to actively targeting two editors: myself and User:Miesianiacal, whom he attempted to WP:OUT, claiming a conflict of interest here.
3. In February 2016, Travelmite made 246 edits, some aimed at Miesianiacal, but most (198) directed against me via the Australian head of state dispute article, which I created in 2011 and has a handful of regular editors on this rather specialised topic. Examples of his behaviour here, here, here, here and many others. Only a few edits during this time were on other matters, such as support for Brianhe's failed admin request here and some triva concerning Ugg boots here.
4. In March 2016, all of this account's 101 edits were aimed at me via the head of state and related articles, continuing the previous month's behaviour.
5. This account quietened down during April, May and June, apart from two edits at Talk:Panini, taking a predictably opposite position to mine. I had been called there via an RfC request. Travelmite simply followed me there.
6. In July 2016, out of 52 edits, 49 were again directed at me via the School of Economic Science article, which has been a subject of some interest to me. Travelmite again caused disruption, mainly via another WP:COIN topic here.
7. In August 2016, after I attempted to raise this matter discreetly in other forums, the account's behaviour abruptly changed, with edits after 16 August moving away from me.

Out of 569 edits made by the Travelmite account in 2016, 393 (or 69%) were directed against me via articles I edit, or through various other harassments, such as the WP:COIN issue. Fot most of 2016, this account has followed me around Wikipedia for the purposes of harassment, making few edits that were not connected to me in one way or another. Looking at this account's edits, I think that the charge of WP:Wikihounding is clearly demonstrated. Again, I quote:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This account edits via Chinese proxies. It is apparently not connected with any other Wikipedia account, as determined by discreet Checkuser requests. (The requests were made discreetly for legitimate reasons I am unable to disclose here.)

I suspect that this account is fraudulent, based on the fact that its behaviour changed abruptly in late January 2016 from making a few sparse innocuous edits to being concerned almost exclusively with myself and Miesianiacal, disputing over various articles, talk pages and noticeboards day after day. This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here.

In late January 2016, there was some discussion here about an interaction ban involving four editors, one of whom was myself. I opposed the application of an IBAN then, but I am seeking one now, between myself and Travelmite. I don't mind if Travelmite makes constructive edits (and he shows a good deal of familiarity with wikipractice), but I do find the continued stalking offensive and disruptive.

I request the attention of other editors here to consider my request for an interction ban. --Pete (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable request. Until an IBAN can be implemented, I recommended you try and WP:SHUN the user for now. Better yet, I think this long-term wikihounding warrants a block. I haven't observed this user's contributions closely, but from what you've written, and from the diffs, there is a possibility of a WP:NOTHERE case. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 14:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a person of the highest principles and integrity. The accusations above are all false, including the details and statistics. You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations. I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring. Why three? Pete/Skying's incivility towards other editors has unfortunately generated incalculable complaints and counter-complaints. And everyone sees them here on the dispute pages - that is the only way I know about them. Travelmite (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Travelmite: Please could you provide evidence that Skyring has been uncivil (diffs)? Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are many. Let's start the 23rd March where I am called a "troll" when defending against false accusations against another editor [3][4] and here making further unfounded accusations that I am "dedicated to disruption" [5]. A few uncivil/baiting comments towards User_talk:Py0alb regarding spelling of Panini, with this diff [6] being one example. User:Roberthall7 is under a bit of a personal attack here [7] which led to the discovery Pete/Skyring was a member of the organisation in the article and making sympathetic edits. But there's more than just my dealings, because this block from 8-August shows a more serious attempt at making accusations, [8] but I don't know the details of that. Travelmite (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also from the same page: [9] Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Looking at Travelmite's diffs above, I think they lend far more credence to my assertion that he stuck his nose in and harassed me for months.
2. He says, "You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." I direct attention here, where the other victim of his attention underscores my assertions.
3. Travelmite lodged spurious Conflict of interest reports against each of us, has been blocked multiple times for harassing other editors, and still claims he has the highest integrity. I disagree with his claim. I think he has proven himself wrong many times over. --Pete (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"I deal with hundreds of issues on Wikipedia, only three involving Pete/Skyring." Maybe. That's like saying our planet has thousands of landmasses, only seven of which are continents. Looking at Travelmite's contributions, we see how much attention is given to various issues. 45 edits (totalling 14 212 characters) on School of Economic Science, one (17 characters) on Tragedy of the commons. The pattern is clear. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What has happened recently, to suddenly warrant an Hounding report? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not heard from Pete/Skyring for about a month. From User:Roberthall7, I learnt he was blocked due to some other dispute. I guess the block has ended and well ... this. Travelmite (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The two of you are clearly not seeing eye to eye. I think you should agree to disagree, and get a two-way IBAN. You obviously aren't able to collaborate in harmony, and what's happened has just caused animosity between you. Until then, you should just deny all communication with each other. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 19:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you were summoned here GoodDay, through one of several canvassing edits here, misleadingly headed "Beacon Reader". I've done my best to ignore Travelmite since March, WP:SHUNing him as per Linguist111's comment. I could see he was putting more effort into trying to irritate me than I was in being irritated, but he made one reversion too many, and I decided to get more eyes on the subject. It's like having a stalking ex, and applying for a restraining order. Wikipedia's equivalent is an interaction ban, and that's all I'm looking for here. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is akin to workplace bullying and corruption, with a duty on all of us to help stamp it out. We have seen the accusations are false. Although I've been involved a mere three times, it has been confirmed above that the overriding issue is how other editors complain and request help from the community (via the dispute pages) to deal with harassment, bad faith, tenacious arguing and ignoring existing consensus positions, outstanding conflict of interest complaints and so on. (Note: Currently, due process is also at issue here. See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#Right_to_defense.) Travelmite (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite has above demonstrated the problem in the relationship. A look at his contributions from late January on shows very little else but a focus on my activities. He claims "hundreds of issues", but apart from a few, every post has been concerned with two topics:

• The issue of the Australian head of state, through the lead article here (171 edits totalling 60 714 characters), an RfC about the Australian head of state (79 edits totalling 29 925 characters), and some related pages. Contributions here.
• The School of Economic Science (45 edits totalling 14 212 characters) and related pages. Contributions between 15 July and 16 August.

Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles maintained by a handful of editors each. Travelmite's edits in article space were either destructive, or modest and superficial, his edits in talkspace fixated on my doings. His contributions list demonstrates the facts, rather than his wildly inaccurate clams, and may easily be checked through the hundreds of edits. This is not the "mere three times" claimed above! It is an unhealthy fixation, and his dishonest denials of the problem's extent underscore this. I think a two-way interaction ban would fix the problem, allowing Travelmite to pursue other targets. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"You won't find a single other editor to confirm these accusations." Er, I am a single other editor who will confirm the accusations. Travelmite was not only sternly warned against making further unfounded and bad faith accusations against me, he threatened and then attempted to WP:OUT me, first by trying to have COI and OUTing rules changed and then by creating a page off-Wiki and linking it to my talk page (that edit was permanently stricken from my talk page's history). He eventually left me alone due to, I assume, a combination of the warnings and my ignoring him.

I didn't fail to notice from time to time that Pete/Skyring had indeed become the new permanent target of Travelmite and his obsession with and misunderstanding of conflict of interest. I recognize the behaviour, as I made an AN/I report about Travelmite myself for the same reasons. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies! On looking at the previous ANI link I notice that Travelmite was attacking you in an outrageous fashion, earning a 48-hour block and several warnings in the process. The use of Chinese proxy addresses was also noticed by two editors, as well as the "out of nowhere" approach that caught my eye. He likewise made a spurious COIN report and badgered you on your talk page; familiar behaviour. I strongly suspect this account to be run by someone with a longer wikihistory than meets the eye, using proxies to avoid scrutiny. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the interactions, none of these are accurate. I never outed Meisianiacal nor did I try. I did not create an off-wiki page or link it - that doesn't even make sense. Maintenance of privacy was always taken into full consideration. Requests from others to explain my information on-wiki were refused, because I didn't trust them enough. Fortunately later, Meisianiacal made a solemn declaration to an admin, which took the COI issue away. Meisianiacal, just to let you know that this incident report is not a problem. You didn't open it. Your privacy remains an absolute priority. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Travelmite made a specific identification, and threw in allegations of a sexual nature. Some evidence of this remains on-wiki. For obvious reasons I shall not comment further, though I can back up my statements privately to senior Wikiofficials if need be.--Pete (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111, I'm brought out of my major off-Wiki commitments at the moment after User:Travelmite messaged me and you reverted that message on my Talk page. Your issue with his message may well have merit. Is it in keeping with standard WP practices for WP editors to remove material from each others' talk pages? Assuming it is, please explain your edit. Also, do you have a history of dealing with the editors in question, or is this your first interaction with them? Turning to the issue of this ANI:

• Due to my major off-Wiki commitments I don't have time to become fully involved.
• I know nothing about Travelmite's alleged connections to other accounts (that happen to be in China), a serious matter if true. Nor do I know about his full record of editing WP and attitude toward User:Miesianiacal which from the description, if accurate, appears to be in need of change.
• What I do know is that Travelmite's issues with Pete/Skyring have merit in at least one article. I recommend observers take a very close look at the School of Economic Science Talk page, before drawing any conclusions about Travelmite and this ANI. He, I and Pete/Skyring have for months been the most active editors on that article. Pete/Skyring has self-identified himself as a member of the School of Economic Science, an organization variously described as a church, school, cult or new religious movement.
• On that Talk page Pete/Skyring has been identified by afair Travelmite, myself and User:Fiddlersmouth as disruptive, and afair the three of us ceased to assume his good faith and identified his personal attacks. On the Talk page there, you'll see a repeated allegation from Pete/Skyring that I am a WP:SPA, and my explanatory response to it, including notice of my disengagement due to the discussion becoming both personal and adversarial. Until now, I have maintained that disengagement, averted edit-warring and direct Talk-page debate with Pete/Skring. Nevertheless Pete/Skyring has continued to bait me; one tactic appears to be a switch to referring to me in discussions with other editors as female ("she" , "her" etc), when nobody else on WP does, and despite my username being Roberthall7. I haven't taken the bait. There's plenty more problematic behavior where that came from.
• On that Talk page, afair User:Keithbob recommended Travelmite, myself, User:Fiddlersmouth and Pete/Skyring going to ANI instead of undertaking lengthy Talk page discussion about behavior. Travelmite replied that he hoped it didn't get to ANI, presumably because he wanted to keep things cool. So it may be that Travelmite's refusal to go as far as ANI was well-intentioned, but that resulted instead in a sort of vigilante 'policing' behaviour by him to deal with Pete/Skyring. That may have caused a negative impression about Travelmite to be formed. He might indeed have been better off going to ANI in the first place, as Keithbob advised.
• For the record, I have had involved content disagreements and differences of opinion with Travelmite. Even at their most entrenched, I not once found his editing or comments to be disruptive, manipulative or uncivil, which seems to be the final test of all allegedly inappropriate WP behavior. On the contrary, he has been meticulously even-handed, sometimes appearing to at least partially support Pete/Skyring, while disagreeing with me. The result has been establishment of consensus and stability to the School of Economic Science article, for which Travelmite is due for acknowledgement and praise.
• If Travelmite were to get blocked, administrators would need to observe what Peter/Skyring then does at the School of Economic Science article without Travelmite being there to provide balance. It may be that this ANI was launched by Pete/Skyring to tactically remove the balance that Travelmite has provided to that article, for a while at least.
• Pete/Skyring has a long history of blocks due to disruptive behavior, and he has just come out of a two-week block. It's conspicuous that he would choose now, of all times, to cast aspersions about Travelmite with an ANI. Is it some kind of emotional retaliation? Aside from Travelmite, I and afair at least one other editor, Fiddlersmouth, having ceased to assume Pete/Skyring's good faith on an article in which they interacted at length. As such, Pete/Skyring's ANI about Travelmite should not be concluded without further scrutiny of Pete/Skyring himself.
• At the School of Economic Science Talk page Pete/Skying has made deceptive edits, to the extent that I am skeptical about his allegations against Travelmite here.
• If the allegation about Travelmite using Chinese proxies turns out to be true, and I note that he has immediately denied them, one solution to think about might be a combination of an interaction ban for Travelmite as well as a topic ban for Pete/Skyring that stops the disruption which may have prompted Travelmite's vigilante 'policing'.
• Either way, I would now support an ANI scrutinizing Pete/Skyring's behavior at the School of Economic Science article, in which I would expect and welcome scrutiny of myself.
• Based on past form, Pete/Skyring will attempt to undermine my observations on the grounds that I'm a WP:SPA. I'm confident that administrators know disruptive behavior is the test of editors' conduct. If I've been disruptive, then please show me where and I'll apologize and make amends.
• I'm getting back to my off-Wiki work now, and give notice that I'll be preoccupied with that for the next couple of weeks. Thanks and good luck, -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! Perhaps you could provide a diff for Travelmite's "immediate denial" of editing via Chinese IP proxies? That would be interesting, given that his contributions show him claiming the edits made by several such proxies. You seem to applaud Travelmite for (in your words) "vigilante" behaviour. We don't support vigilantes on Wijipedia. We have well-established policies for dealing with disruption; one example is this noticeboard. Could you clarify your statements above on these two points, please? --Pete (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the 'School of Economic Science' article & haven't been involved with it. But in my past dealings with Travelmite, I've found him to be an honest fellow, who cuts through the baloney. GoodDay (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay! On the issue of honesty, what do you make of his claim to have interacted with me a "mere three times"? As you know, the true figure would be in the hundreds, and this may be checked by looking through his contributions. This is why I make the charge of WP:Wikihounding. Would you be in favour of an interaction ban? --Pete (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IBANs tend to be problematic & short term solutions. I'm not sure how to solve this disagreement between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we two have some disagreements from time to time, but I think we get on amicably enough, wouldn't you say? I don't go hunting you around the wikipedia to comment on what you're doing and to !vote against you. Wikihounding is a serious business, and most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself. I think an IBAN would solve that immediate problem. Others here are in agreement on this point. Perhaps I'll open up a vote section. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The three interactions are Australian head of state dispute, Panini (sandwich) and School of Economic Science. Actually, it's two because I simply voted for Panini spelling under an RfC and didn't interact with anyone. Travelmite (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Panini thing was a clear example of stalking.

1. I was summoned to that RfC by Legobot on my talk page here on 3 May 2016. This is the sandwich, rather than the reknowned Sanskrit grammarian, Pāṇini, of course. I found a proposal to bastardise a perfectly good Italian word, which appalled me, and I !voted in favour of grammar on 5 May.
2. I also found one of those interesting people who "care too much" and had some enjoyable time with him, which was naturally reflected in my contributions. When someone battles over some trivial word, I find it fascinating. There were some interesting people in the "winningest" discussion in January.[10]
3. Travelmite followed me there on 13 May - he was watching my contributions - and !voted the opposite way here.
4. Travelmite does not subscribe to any RfC notification service. Nor does he participate in !votes of any kind unless I am involved in some way. Not one. That's stalking. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, you say "The accusations above are all false" meaning that you deny that you used proxy accounts. Does that mean the alleged 'Chinese proxy accounts' were simply your IP addresses created automatically by WP because you hadn't signed in (an oversight which you then corrected)? Or do you have any other explanation? The use of the phrase 'proxy' is an accusation of puppetry, which won't be taken lightly at ANI. -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert, you're entirely correct. I'm not a network expert, but I certainly don't deliberately use proxies and don't use them as far as I am aware. But let's allow Pete/Skring to make the accusations, because that won't be taken lightly either. He is a member of the School of Economic Science, but somehow free of COI restrictions [11] and seeking an interaction ban. Travelmite (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to believe you, but in that case, could you explain the three diffs above that show you signing your name on edits made using Chinese proxies? It's not possible to "accidentally" use those IPs unless (a) you are in China, or (b) you are trying to hide your actual IP address. Those aren't an "accusation", but a simple fact. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's (a) being in China, and I accept that from you, it's not an accusation. I am extremely fortunate that my explanation is simple enough, as the tactic of Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions and getting others to be suspicious is highly effective. Most people in China are affected by the Censorship of Wikipedia and need to use open proxies (policy here ), but this has not been a problem for me. Furthermore, there has been no activity in the forum to warrant mentioning it in the first place. I deny all allegations, and draw your attention to Pete/Skyrings recent block and, to be fair, his response [12], but I don't know further details. Travelmite (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, if you were located in China when doing those IP edits which you then corrected, then it would appear that you did nothing wrong and may have been in receipt of a false accusation of malice. One could also ask whether the word 'Chinese' was used pejoratively to sensationalize the accusation. On that note, have you received fair warning that your activity was being perceived as stalking, prior to this ANI? In other words, have you been given fair opportunity to explain and/or change your behavior before being forced to by Administrators? It may be that this is the first time you've heard the stalking allegation. If so, a formal warning may be more appropriate than an interaction ban, and Keithbob's recommendation not to be shy of using the ANI noticeboard may be the new course you should take, instead of dealing with problematic editors on a piecemeal basis. -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

These are new allegations. Furthermore they are false. At some point, you were being attacked for being SLA and the page called out about disruptive edits and management of COI issues. Travelmite (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I might have been improperly canvassed, but I might as well comment as I've come to the page. I was involved in the debate at the Australian head of state dispute page. That article has questionable merits, as it seems to have been created to promote a fringe view that the Queen is not Australia's head of state. It had effectively become a debating forum, with endless discussion pages in which the same points were raised time and again. A lot of the discussion was counterproductive and frustrating. Criticism could be made against many of the participants, including me. I don't think Travelmite stood out as doing anything objectionable. I can't comment about his behaviour on other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! We're not rehashing specific debates. Editors are entitled to their views and we have procedures to deal with diversity of opinion. Seems to be working fine so far, judging by the result. The problem is that Travelmite's contributions since late January consist mostly of him following myself and another editor around the wikipedia on a range of diverse topics, always with a contrary position, always creating discord. I'm looking to put a stop to that. WP:Wikihounding is the topic here. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Jack, I too question the existence of the Australian head of state dispute article, but of course that's something to discuss 'there. Anyways, I'm going to go neutral on the IBAN & allow other editors (who've not been involved much with either yourself or Travelmite in the past) to decide this one. GoodDay (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to look at the context. Pete accused Travelmite of being disruptive of the Australian head of state dispute article in March — [13] — pointing to Travelmite's initial post in January. However, Travelmite's post is recorded in Archive 5. I had started contributing to the Talk pages in September last year, at which point the discussions began to become voluminous. Pete followed this up by calling Travelmite a troll: [14]. Note that Travelmite was essentially saying that the Queen was head of state. Hardly disruptive behaviour in itself. The article now has 8 talk page archives. Travelmite is only featured in a few. All of them feature Pete. This seems more like a case of ownership than trolling.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Be fair. I created the article, and maintain an interest. Two other editors also appear in every single archive, and together, with rthree diverse viewpoints, we found a reasonable stability. You came lately, but I don't accuse you of trolling, Jack, because you express a genuine interest, and you haven't followed me around to other unconnected articles. Your behaviour is, on the surface similar to Travelmite's, but I don't accuse you of trolling, now do I? There must be something I see in you that says authenticity. It it is because you come across that way. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction edit counts

Using one of the tools available from the WP:Wikihounding page, I have compiled a table of interactions here. --Pete (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The table (all periods) confirms the interactions relate to three issues: Australian head of state dispute (Jan-March 2016), one RfC vote on spelling Panini and the School of Economic Science (July 2016). The table of interactions over the past four months, when the Head of State Dispute was concluded is as follows:Editor Interaction Analyser

The analyser demonstrates beyond doubt how the allegation is false. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I had already done the edit interaction analysis and found that about 250 (140 the dispute page + 80 wikiproject + 40 their usertalk) of Travelmite's 790 edits are specifically congregated to 3 pages, that 400 or so of the total 790 are on pages that Skyring and Miesianiacal have also edited and that while there is a shocking amount of overlap it doesn't appear to me to be indicative of immediate Wikihounding, especially give that the overlap is across a total of 17 pages for all three editors, 19 for TM and Miesi and 33 for TM and Skyring (which is admittedly a lot), but, taking into account all the time lines; 7 of the overlaps with Miesi are in the past 24 hours with all of them being rather expected, however, this changes drastically in the case of Skyring where about 20 of the overlaps with Pete are in the past 24 hours with one of those being uncharacteristically out of place; Talk:Panini (sandwich). So, I'd discount Wikihounding with respect to Miesi, but, am not so ready to do so in the case of Skyring. Note, of the 20 overlaps I'd consider 15 of these to be entirely expected due to this report, the specific user talk pages, and the mutual interest in politics. It's possible that Panini is an unfortunate outlier and not an intentional following. A better pair of eyes with greater experience is needed to draw a definitive conclusion though, and this is merely my two cents based on what I am seeing and expecting to see. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I think we may discount some edits right off the bat, such as most of Travelmite's contributions on his own talk page. I wouldn't discount any of the Australian politics edits; they all concerned the one topic of Australian head of state. I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns, rather than "unfortunate outliers". It is impossible to explain them as random chance. Travelmite saw them on my contributions, followed me there, and lodged a contrary !vote. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Twelve articles and/or talk pages, totalling 256 edits.
• Nine Wikipedia project pages, totalling 157 edits
• Eight user talk pages, totalling 59 edits.
• Twenty-nine pages in total, of which Travelmite followed me there twenty-three times. 472 edits combined.
• Of Travelmite's 723 edits on en.wikipedia.org during that period, that's an intersection of 65%.
• So of Travelmite's entire Wikipedia contributions, two thirds involve overlapping contributions. If we discount Travelmite's 96 contributes before 26 January 2016, the ratio rises to 75%.

Two things are crystal clear:

1. Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree.
2. Travelmite's claims to the contrary are risible.

I think readers will understand why I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says. The facts simply do not support him. --Pete (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun. Brianhe RfC is easy to explain, because someone suggested I look at that page, and the words are "To see what I mean about community opinions on privacy and managing COI, and about "content not contributor", please have a look at this RFA, especially the concerns raised in the questions and in the oppose !votes" [15]. I didn't know he voted. I voted to spell Panini, because that's how everyone spells it, not because Pete/Skyring spells it Panino. That came up on a list of RfCs. It is inevitable that you will cross an editor who gets involved in thousands of articles every month (Total edits over 4 months: 16,932!).

Several editors hear have more interactions with Pete/Skyring that I do! Skyring also makes tenacious arguments building up the raw edit count, on the two occasions we interacted. On other pages, edits go smoothly and rarely followup is required. Broad statistics must be analysed properly. Thanks Mr rnddude for your conclusions. Travelmite (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brianhe reference. That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all. Looking at your contributions, it's as if someone just flipped a switch in late January. The behaviour of the account changes radically, and suddenly instead of making rare trivial edits, you're a COI warrior. The character of the edits in articlespace changes. Even the language used on talk pages changes from almost non-existent and strained (see [16][17][18] for examples) to fluent, confident and plentiful. The difference in character is marked. What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?

I don't buy the Panini story at all. The only RfCs you've participated in have been those involving me. Three of them. I've just reviewed your entire contribution list, and there's no other examples. Not a single other instance of you joining a random RfC discussion. A normal person, looking at the list of current RfCs - and there are hundreds open at any one time - will see many that will pique their interest. In nearly two years you apparently only found one of these interesting enough to participate in, and it just happened to be one where I'd spent a week in animated discussion. Right.

And how do you explain your sudden interest in the School of Economic Science? There's only one explanation. You open up my user contributions to see what I've been doing, and you jump in, aiming to annoy me. That's stalking, and I want it stopped. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason that one vote, once, would annoy a person. A person cannot expect to annoy someone by making one edit. This is not what stalking is and it does not make sense. That would mean any person who happened to vote would annoy you, and that it not their problem. My interest in School of Economic Science was not sudden. The COI issue was there since 2015. This is already documented on the COI noticeboard. Travelmite (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You stalked me by following me to the Panini RfC. You claim that you selected it from a list - of hundreds - after I'd been engaged there for a week of spirited discussion. I reject this as implausible for reasons given earlier. I think you looked at my contributions list, noted my activity, and followed me there. To mark the lamppost, as it were.

The same thing happened with School of Economic Science. You saw my activity and followed me there. How else would you even have been aware of it?

That's stalking. I'd like it stopped. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the statistics, there is a major error in what Pete/Skyring presents. If he is trying to present "stalking" he must have a start date. His start date is prior to our first discussion. His statistics include our first discussion and everything that followed. He also includes this complaint. Apparently, meeting Pete/Skyring and dealing with these complaints all counts as stalking. Therefore the statistics are vastly exaggerated and cannot be relied upon, as per my original reply. Every other interaction (of which there are two) has now been explained. Travelmite (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether some of the explanations are able to be swallowed is a different question, I think. Travelmite makes a vaild point here in the beginning and ending points. However, the tool looks at pages edited by both, and isn't the definitive answer. I'd put a narrower definition of stalking than Travelmite does, and say that it constitutes following another user around the wiki to cause disruption.

If we re-run the tool, setting an end date of 16 August, rather than 31 August, we can exclude this discussion we are having now, as well as Travelmite's talk page. I'll keep the same start date of 1 January 2015, because otherwise the tool labels Travelmite as visiting some pages before I did, such as Australian head of state dispute, and that is clearly wrong, because I created the article many years ago, spinning off content from its parent at Government of Australia. I think we can reasonably ignore any line showing more than a week between contributions as not being an interaction. The tool's revised output now shows Travelmite made 346 edits to the same pages as I did, about half his total. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Interaction ban

Skyring feels that Travelmite has been wikihounding him, and has presented evidence supporting same. He proposes a two-way interaction ban between himself and Travelmite in order to end this nuisance. What are the feelings of other editors? Should a two-way IBAN be imposed?

• Support IBAN (as proposer). Possibly Miesianiacal could be included, given the outrageous wikihounding by Travelmite against him in January and February this year. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Travelmite's contributions to Talk:Australian head of state dispute were somewhat problematic, without doubting good faith there, while Pete/Skyring has been consistently tenacious (not necessarily a fault). But given the facts presented above, the proposed IBAN may be helpful to all interested parties. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom The two of you clearly can't work together in harmony, so I don't see why not. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Commnet - An interaction ban will do nothing to prevent Wikihounding (Please read on as I explain why). I think I need to explain what an interaction ban is and what it does so that both of you (Skyring and Travelmite) are aware of what restrictions it will impose. An interaction ban will impose two main restrictions on the two of you, first you will be barred from each others' pages (meaning talk, user, sandbox, etc) and second, probably more usefully, you will be barred from commenting to each other, pinging each other, commenting about each other, reverting each others' edits and thanking each other (through the thank user for their edit) function. What it will not do is prevent you from overlapping on any article page; you will both be able to edit any article page and join the same discussions on article talk pages. This is the main sticking point for my current oppose comment, Skyring, I believe you want to avoid not only interacting, but, overlapping with the other editor. An IBAN will not impose such a restriction and your concerns about Wikihounding won't be reasonably addressed by an IBAN. The reason I bring this up is because of Panini and Brianhe, neither of those incidents would violate an IBAN because neither of those incidents actually involved an interaction. It is because of this that I see little value in an IBAN. I think that you should (probably will have to) both wait for an administrator (Black Kite is one) or significantly experienced user to join this discussion. So far, Linguist and myself appear to be the only completely uninvolved parties to comment here and I don't think either of us meet the "experienced" threshold for this situation. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr rnddude! I've read your comments and appreciate the thought you have put into them. Yes, you are correct: the IBAN restrictions wouldn't prevent Travelmite from following me around and !voting in whatever RfCs etc. I participate in. That's not a problem, to be honest. All these public votes are open to all Wikipedians, and I believe the right for all Wikipedians in good standing to participate in our consensomocracy is something worth fighting for. Even if I personally disagree with the opinions expressed.

I raised the Brianhe and Panini examples as evidence of wikihounding. Travelmite gave a plausible explanation of the Brianhe RfA, and the evidence checks out. But he was unable to explain how he followed me to the Panini RfC. Well, he said he picked it from a list, but I don't believe this; since early 2015 he's participated in only three RfCs, all of which have involved me. I think I would have participated in maybe a dozen or so over that time - perhaps someone can check - out of the hundreds, maybe thousands of RfCs raised. Chances of complete congruence, if we posit only a thousand RfCs in that period, are 12/1000 * 11/999 * 10/998 , or one chance in 755 000. So I find his answer a little hard to swallow!

I want an IBAN for the following reason. In late January 2016 I accepted an IBAN (against my wishes, for the sort of reasoning you outline above). If I may be excused a minor indirect reference, both sides have adhered to the conditions, and the ANI drama dropped off. Since then I have this Travelmite thing popping up, and I'd like the same solution applied. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I was out when you responded, and have been aware of your response for a few hours. I think I see what you're referring to, mostly what you want is to not have to interact with Travelmite regardless of whether you two end up on the same pages or whatever. I can see how this may be beneficial, even if you are being followed at least you're not also being forced to interact. I can see this being beneficial to both parties, but, only if both parties are willing to adhere to it. Otherwise the outcome will be further drama and another report either at AN/I or one of the other administrative noticeboards. For the time being I'm going to demote my Oppose vote to a Comment. I'd like to see a mutual agreement to an IBAN as this is generally the only way to avoid further drama. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support IBAN - In early August I gave Travelmite a warning on his talk page because of his/her unwarranted aggression towards Pete. It's clear from this thread alone that both parties are fully invested in this dispute and there is a strong charge between them. An IBAN is the prudent thing to do to avoid further escalation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) PS I also gave Pete a warning in mid-July so neither of these parties has clean hands. I strongly support an IBAN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments to me were directed at a different topic (which could well be explored here under a different thread), but never mind. It wasn't Travelmite's edits as such I found objectionable, merely the fact that he'd come after me again and again. It's like having some kind of persistent parasite. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Absolute, unequivocal OPPOSE As almost any veteran editor who contributes to this space regularly can tell you, these kinds of prophylactic/self requested IBANS (and indeed IBANS generally) are ill-advised, counter-intuitive, counter-productive and almost absolutely certain to generate more disruption, and consume more wasted community effort in bringing things into order, than they (the IBANs) can ever be reasonably expected to prevent. If two editors are already working in the same areas, and IBAN will not prevent their orbits from continuing to cross. The pretty much inevitable result of these encounters is that one or the other party (or both!) flies here immediately to try to leverage the IBAN to get the other editor out of their way. And they don't have to wait until somebody crosses the line into incivility or disruption; by virtue of the IBAN, they get to instantly assert that every content disagreement they have is in fact "behavioural issue" that is appropriate for this forum; long-winded, unproductive discussion insues, often with no consensus result other than for the parties to be sent to their respective corners with a caution. Then, within a couple of months (or weeks, or yes, indeed sometimes days) the parties are back here with carbon-copy counter-accusations of violating the IBAN again. And so it goes, over and over and over. And this happens with almost every IBAN handed down via ANI (as opposed to ARBCOM, which has a more effective, standardized, and streamlined enforcement mechanism for formal cases) and especially those that come at the request of one or both parties (each of whom can view it as a means to clear the other editor from their path, so long as they stake out territory, such as particular articles or subject matter in the areas where they work and "secure" it against the other editor's influence).

Which brings us to the other reason why IBANs are generally so mind-bogglingly short-sighted; they discourage editors in conflict from adopting the basic principles and tools of collaborative editing that define this project. If an editor can come to such vehement conflict with one person that they just cannot drop the stick and work through an issue reasonably with the aid of the consensus process and community request tools, then they absolutely are capable of developing that entrenched mentality in general, with other editors. It's really simple: if editors cannot sort out issues between themselves and one or both fall into disruptive behaviours, sanctions should result for all parties the community judges to be disruptive. If said editors repeatedly fail to clear loggerheads with others, then there's a good chance they do not have the disposition this project requires, in order that a contribute without consuming more community effort than is offset by their contributions. Regardless, the absolutely number one wrong-headed thing we can do (as this forum has born out time and time again) is to give them an excuse to not amicably resolve their disagreement (or at least bring in others and let consensus decide) and then give them a tool which allows them to bring their petty dispute to behavioural forum every time they get a glance of eachother and their hackles raise. I've said this before on this topic in recent years and I'll say it again after reviewing this particular instance: no, no, no--a thousand times NO! Snow ^{let's rap} 19:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow Rise. An interesting opinion. Two points.

1. This isn't about two editors working in the same areas. This is about one editor following another one around. It's about WP:Wikihounding. I think an IBAN will fix this.
2. I entered into an IBAN with another editor in late January. There have been no ANI reports raised over that in the eight months since.

Perhaps your very worthy opinions on IBANs are aimed at other cases, and if you were to review the many contributions put forth in discussion here, you might see why this isn't like the scenarios you raise. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Civility / personal attacks / End of request

In writing and responding, Pete/Skying appears to be breaching talk-page guidelines. This is a stressful series of ongoing accusations now going over four days. Various refutations of the allegations, which I have provided, have done nothing but caused increased incivility, perhaps even paranoia. Anyway, this has become an ongoing public attack, dressed up as an IBAN request to make seem acceptable to support. This is not solving harassment - this is the harassment. Details of offensive language, aspersions etc... are detailed below for the record.

1. WP:CIVIL Civility: "I find it impossible to believe anything Travelmite says", "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?", "his dishonest denials", "this account is fraudulent"
2. WP:CLAIMS Excessive claims: "most of what Travelmite has done here is to harass Mies and myself", "Both articles were, prior to Travelmite's involvement, stable articles", "you jump in, aiming to annoy me", "It is an unhealthy fixation", "Travelmite has focused his attention squarely on me to an astonishing degree" (So Freudian!)
3. Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions: "always with a contrary position, always creating discord", "it's as if someone just flipped a switch", "This account edits via Chinese proxies" (wrong), "not subscribe to any RfC notification service", "This is not the usual manner in which editors begin their service here."
4. WP:TE Tendentious editing: "That's plausible, but it raises the question of what you were doing arguing COI at all", Replying to most comments with the same information, Refuting all comments that disagree
5. WP:FAIT Erroneous Conclusions/Fait accompli: "There's only one explanation" (there's more), "It is impossible to explain them as random chance", " I see the Panini edits and the Brianhe RfA as smoking guns" (they weren't).
6. WP:OUTING (partial): The country where I work was revealed due to WP:DOX Doxing
7. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy Statistics erroneously included this complaint and the initial interactions.

That's more than enough to get the idea. Someone should have picked up that this was happening. In conclusion, the IBAN request is moot. My "punishment" is a self-imposed block, so I can get real work done. Bye!

P.S. Linguist111 - good luck as your experience builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel upset. I'm just trying to clear up the differences between us. You say you have refuted the points I made, but on examination, this turns out not to be the case. Let's take your points one by one.

My comment, "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?" was not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with your grammar now. However, the contributions of this account prior to late January were very different. It is plain to see. It is as if a different person were contributing, one who wrote in a very different way. (See [19][20][21] for examples). Likewise in Wikivoyage, we see tortured, stilted English, such as this example. The contributions in articlespace were very different to what followed. Most of the year's contributions came on two days, and they were markedly different from anything done since. So what explains the vivid change? --Pete (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Skyring: "What happened - you suddenly discover grammar?"—that was a personal attack, and with the comment above you appear to be gaming the system by "walking it back" instead of apologising. Travelmite, I'm sorry for suggesting you should be blocked; I was too hasty and didn't address the situation properly by listening to both sides first and looking closer. On observing the situation, what's evident is that we have someone who feels they're being hounded, and someone who feels they're on the receiving end of false accusations. The two parties are not reaching any common ground, and this is turning into a battle between them. If Skyring feels an IBAN is necessary to cut off all contact from Travelmite and put an end to this dispute, then I see no reason not to go ahead with it. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 11:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry? How is that a personal attack? I'm asking for an explanation of the two very different styles of English before and after late January 2016. I've provided samples of the first style; it is strained, the syntax and punctuation (particularly commas) are ungrammatical, it doesn't flow. Try reading it out loud; it is choppy and stiff. In comparison, the account shifts to a more natural and grammatical style in late January. I won't say it's poetical, but it certainly reads more fluently. The change is immediate and dramatic. Combined with a likewise dramatic shift in contribution patterns, it seems to me that this one account has been run by two different people, and I'm wondering if there is some explanation for this, perhaps something to do with the use of Chinese proxies. --Pete (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. It looks like a sarcastic comment about someone's intellect. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 12:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a comment on grammar, not intellect. We can see for ourselves. Before:

There such a long discussion about it. There must be someone here who is objecting to it being changed? Look, let me put it this way. At the moment, your are thinking only in US current-affairs mode. In South Africa, white people once got an unequivocal privilege to vote, so that alone is probably enough to justify the wording. If there is a political proposal, fictional world or legal case involving or clearly allowing such privileges, it's also enough to justify the wording. I also checked also how it's handled in other articles.[22] - 21 December 2015

After:

None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between de jure and de facto roles.[23] - 28 January 2016

The difference is clear. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was still an attack. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not intended as such. Perhaps more my sensitive soul being injured at the mishandling of the English language I see in the early Travelmite contributions. To my eye, such prose grates. At least the later contributions are easier to understand. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Statement to Travelmite: I support your closing statement above. Perhaps you could have been more polite in your defense. But you are not the main troublemaker here squandering community time and good will, Pete/Skyring is. You’ve understood that the way you have attempted to deal with disruptive behaviour may be counter-productive and can jeopardize your own standing. Your decision to disengage from Pete/Skyring from now on is the right thing to do. If it comes to any more of his disruption, please now go straight to ANI rather than ignoring it. Your contributions to School of Economic Science have moderated Pete/Skyring’s disruption there, and have therefore made Wikipedia a better place. I don’t know of your past missteps, and assume you are as capable of changing your ways as anyone is.
• Statement to Administrators: I am not going to participate in Pete/Skyring’s vote proposing the imposition of equal discipline on both him and Travelmite. First of all such a double ban would appear to be a way of consoling Pete/Skyring, by getting someone else disciplined with him soon after he was last disciplined: [24] Secondly the vote could be a case attention-seeking; per WP:DEM, Wikipedia is not a democracy and afaia ANI is a place for Administrators to take action, not to spend hours in debate about whether "he did it too". Travelmite says he wasn’t given a warning before this ANI, so he'll take this as his first warning. Besides, he has now voluntarily disengaged from Pete/Skyring, as I did several weeks ago.
• Possible action part 1: A future step could be a topic ban on Pete/Skyring to stop him disrupting the articles where Travelmite attempted to stop him causing disruption. On that note, Panini was a Sanskrit scholar; Sanskrit is taught by the church, school, cult or new religious movement known as the School of Economic Science, which Pete/Skyring says he is a member of. So the two articles are part of the same area of interest. Something needs to be done to prevent his continued disruption to this project. If Travelmite is stepping back, an Administrator needs to step up, otherwise this ANI will not be the last of it.
• Possible action part 2: It is important to assess whether some of Pete/Skyring’s allegations against Travelmite in this ANI have been false, defamatory to him and time-wasting for the community. The allegations have involved a personal attack, as explained by Linguist111 (who had been supporting Pete/Skyring’s case). Pete/Skyring then argued with Linguist111 about it being a personal attack. These allegations also come so soon after Pete/Skyring’s own last block, which he told the sanctioning Administrator Floquenbeam “was a little hasty”, that one of their assumptions was “plain wrong” and therefore asked to be unblocked: [25] It matters little whether Pete/Skyring is deceiving himself, or attempting to deceive others, or both; he’s clearly not learning to change his ways, despite ample opportunity as indicated by his long block history: [26] Another multi-week block may be in order. -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that both Travelmite and Skyring are saying "I've done nothing wrong. It's all [the other editor]'s fault.", so it's hard to tell who is actually in the right here. Skyring has made blatant personal attacks. Travelmite has been accused of stalking and hounding. If Skyring feels they've been hounded, I don't feel I'm in a position to say they haven't. It may have been Travelmite's intention to hound Skyring, or there may have been no intention at all. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, I don't recall saying I've done nothing wrong. I'm as human and fallible as the next person, and I frequently make the most appalling errors. Just ask my wife. I'm a big boy and can accept that. What I want is for Travelmite to cease his vigilante quest against me. Let him seek other targets. Clearly he is a person of some intellect and determination. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me say this about Roberthall7's contribution above. S/he only edits on one subject, and s/he has some distinctive views. I would dearly love to get a busload of neutral editors to go through the School of Economic Science article, untangle some of the sources, and provide a counter-balance for any extremist voices. --Pete (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was you both seem to be putting the blame on the other person. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I have good reason to be critical of Travelmite's actions. From my perspective, he's come here, seemingly out of nowhere, and launched attack after attack on me. After seeing Travelmite's outrageous attempt at outing Miesiniacal, I think I'm justified in being wary. I could list the many personal attacks Travelmite has made on me. Would that be useful, do you think? --Pete (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further statement to Administrators: With this edit [27] Pete/Skyring slipped in the above new section heading. He has positioned it immediately above my comment, which now gives observers the impression that the section heading was added by me. So he's edited my comment. As indicated in my comment, I was specifically replying to User:Travelmite's closing remarks his section entitled Civility / personal attacks / End of request and addressing Administrators about it; I had no wish to comment outside that section. Moreover Pete/Skyring's section heading is a phrase that he has homed in on from my comment, and a question mark added, which appears to be yet more sarcasm. It doesn't reflect my full comment and distracts from it. If ANI discussion is treated the same as Talk page discussion, then this goes against WP:TPO, WP:TALKNEW section 'Keep headings neutral' and WP:VANDAL section 'Talk page vandalism'. -Roberthall7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Roberthall7! You began your contribution on the left margin, rather than following the indentation rules, so I assumed you were responding to no previous comment, just opening up a new section. So I gave it a heading to avoid confusion. No offence intended, just trying to keep things straight on what is becoming a complex discussion. I liked one of the phrases you used, thought it kinda catchy. Never mind. I've deleted it now, fixed the indentation, all sweet. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify what Pete's allegation against Travelmite is. The claims about the change in grammar and the use of Chinese proxy accounts imply that Travelmite is a hijacked sock puppet. Based on the grammmar, Pete seems to think someone else (with better grammar) took over the original Travelmite account. I'm not sure why someone would do this when they could just create a new account. As I understand it, the reference to Chinese proxy accounts implies that someone is trying to hide his or her identity. However, it appears Travelmite is actually in China, and has made China-related edits. I don't think Travelmite has been behaving like a sock puppet because when he started editing Australian head of state dispute he appeared to have just found the article, and made an inaccurate statement he had to retract. I would have thought that a sock puppet would be used by someone familiar with the article. The obvious suspect for puppet-master would be me, as I appeared on the scene a few months before and got into debates with Pete. Is that what Pete is suggesting? If not, then the talk about grammar and the Chinese accounts seems irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Well, kind of. I don't think the account is hijacked, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that it was set up as a "sleeper" account, and for a year it made nothing but trivial edits - adding articles to a category using an established list, and moving some text around in another article. Basically, the account had two days of editing in its first year. And then suddenly everything about it changes. The nature of the edits, the frequency of contributions, the style of language used. It's a metamorphosis. Nothing I've ever seen before.

Using Chinese IP proxies allows the account to operate without the usual sort of checks. Because of the nature of Chinese internet, proxies are used to reduce the chance of being arrested for what we would consider normal activities. There's none of the freedom of expression we in the West take for granted, but of course there is the desire to express freely. Chinese IP proxies are readily available and ever-changing. Just do a search and you'll find lists of dozens. These can be used by anyone in the world.

This sets up a conundrum for Wikipedia. We don't want to stop a huge and increasingly sophisticated population from contributing to our shared effort, but these accounts must necessarily operate outside the normal Checkuser procedures. There are ways to avoid even more intense scrutiny, and with the very real chance of being disappeared and used for organ harvesting, these ways are employed.

So it sets up a loophole for those who want to operate outside Wikipedia's regular procedures. Use Chinese proxies, be careful to use the right privacy tools, and you can avoid detection through technological means. I think that there is a market for this sort of thing. Not just Wikipedia, but packages of established email addresses, social media accounts, software setups and so on. You want to play multiple accounts in a MMO game, just buy the kit from a friend of a friend who knows someone who does this.

In this case, I don't think the article was the target. Travelmite's contributions didn't show any familiarity with the topic. They showed two objectives: to irritate Miesianiacal and myself.

I don't know who or why, but I do know that there are editors on Wikipedia who are driven by urges beyond the desire to contribute to the world's store of information, and I've certainly encountered a few of them in my career here. I'm sure Mies has as well. Buying or establishing a second account to satisfy some inner personal desire for revenge or whatever seems plausible to me. Not normal, but there are people on the internet who do bizarre things for bizarre reasons.

Anyway, whatever it is that is driving the Travelmite account to follow me around Wikipedia isn't really my concern. I just want the stalking to stop. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack. My comment above didn't address your question. No, I had never considered you as the sockmaster for a moment. I'd always regarded you as an honest, straightforward person. Taking a contrary position to mine on one matter, but that's no sin; I think we share views on most other Australian political issues. If I had thought you were running this account, I would have filed a report at the sockpuppet investigations page. But no, I'm honestly unable to name anyone I suspect is the sockmaster. --Pete (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't feel that this was directed at me, but I couldn't think who else the sockmaster could be. As you said, the Australian head of state dispute is a fairly obscure article. Yes, people do bizarre things, but we have to look at the balance of probabilities. I think Travelmite is a bona fide editor. His early edits show a knowledge of and interest in the neighbourhoods of Beijing. This seems to confirm that he was indeed a resident of China, which explains the Chinese IP addresses. I haven't done a linguistic analysis, but I don't think that there is a significant change in language in Travelmite's contributions. His prose might be sloppy at times, but that's normal. And I don't see the relevance of this. I also don't see how you can say he came "seemingly out of nowhere". Wikipedia is not "invitation only". His story checks out. He says his interest in the topic was prompted by Australia Day (26 January). He began editing at Republicanism in Australia the next day, and then moved on to the Australian head of state dispute, probably following the link. Many people are prompted to contribute to articles based on events, anniversaries, etc. He started out making the following comment, which he had to retract: "I have checked the history of this article, and it is written by two monarchists non-Australians." Now, based on the evidence of the discussion, you are an Australian and a republican. Yet you started the article. It doesn't appear Travelmite knew you at all. He didn't arrive there to target you. It appears he stumbled on the article and was outraged at the apparent monarchist POV-pushing. I understand that, because I felt the same way. On the evidence, it appears that your darker suspicions of Travelmite are groundless.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"It appears he stumbled on the article." My italics. If you are running a sock, you don't usually want to get found out. Hence the plausible narrative. I don't think it stacks up, becuase the edits for the whole preceding year were so very different. Basically all of the 96 edits for 2015 came on two days: 21 January and 21 December. Those in January were on Chinese articles, for sure, but needed zero knowledge of China. They were just adding articles to categories according to the list already existing here. And the December contributions had nothing to do with China at all. Just a matter of moving text around. Then, nothing until 27 January, and within a day he's a full-blown warrior making attacks every day on Mies and myself. Day after day all through February and March. Displaying a familiarity with wikiprocess not explained by the unconroversial edits preceding. That's a massive change in the nature of the account. I've never seen anything like it.

But, be that as it may, Travelmite went on to follow me to various other articles. His explanation for joining the Panini RfC is thin and implausible, and no explanation at all was given for attacking me at the School of Economic Science article. Neither of those are explained by an interest in Australian political subjects. It's entirely personal. And I'd like that sort of stalking ended. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. An example from today is located here, and another recent example is here (see also, user response here). It is inappropriate to state that interaction bans exist when they have not occurred via formal processes, which amounts to casting WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. I have noticed that SwisterTwister frequently uses the "silent treatment" against users to limit communication. Here are some diff examples in addition to those above: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].

These behaviors could be potentially perceived as Wikipedia:Gaming the system, using such statements in an intentional manner as a technique to avoid any type of criticism, essentially trying to silence any opposition or concerns, because if a user then attempts to communicate directly about genuine, important concerns, (even in a calm, civil manner, as I have always done), the user can then just point to behavioral guidelines and threaten to go to ANI and such. I'm not stating that gaming is certainly occurring, but it could potentially be. While I understand that the user apparently just wants to be left alone, it is reasonable that questionable deletion nominations, prods, etc. will be challenged. Also, the user nominates a great deal of articles for deletion, and per this high rate, it is reasonable that some editors will have questions or concerns. The user has also requested to not communicate with me at this AfD discussion, which I have respected.

Inre this diff, it is concerning and inappropriate for the user to make demands to another user to not deprod articles they have prodded. Also, users have repeatedly asked the user to consider slowing down over a significant period of time, to follow proper procedures, etc. at ANI (here, here and here) and other than at ANI (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]).

In regard to performing AfC reviews, the user has many queries on their talk page from users, but rarely responds to any of them. This is concerning because reviewers should be open to providing input regarding reasonable queries from other users in relation to their AfC submissions.

Additional discussion regarding this user is located at User talk:E.M.Gregory § Re: thank you for noticing, which includes discussion about the user's AfD nominations and other matters. The discussion includes commentary from several users, including three administrators in addition to myself. Seeking community input at this time about this user's behaviors and actions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified users on their talk pages about this discussion who contributed to/were pinged to User:E.M.Gregory's talk page and those in the links above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A request from one user to another not to comment on each other is usually honored, tho it is not a formal interaction ban. Even a request to let other people be the ones to deal with someone's work is not altogether unreasonable, if it can serve to decrease interpersonal problems. . Even a request to let others be the ones to deprod articles can be justified. Most of us do avoid taking even routine action against any particular editor with who one is at odds, to avoid any feeling that there might be some degrwe of prejudice or personal involvement. But I do know I would never make such statements, certainly not in the manner ST is making them--as the event proves, they are much more likely to arouse interpersonal hostility than to reduce it.

There is no formal obligation to respond to another editor whose article one has tagged for deletion . But most people do, even if all they say is "I only tagged it, please take it up with the admin who deleted it." In general it is a good idea to respond to anyone other than an obvious troll, because we want whenever possible to make sure people understand we are considering each article for its merits, not acting indiscriinatly or mechanically. (This is different from the obligation of an admin to respond about articles they have deleted, where it is considered necessary to give a good faith explanation, but that is not in question here.) It's difficult to say when carelessness in this respect becomes a problem, but I think ST needs to be much more careful here; it is indeed necessary to remove bad articles, but it is not up to any one of us individually to hold the dike; each person should do only as much as they do carefully and respond to properly. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me about this Northamerica1000. I often frequent AfD and AfC to a lesser extent, but I only noticed ST's peculiar behaviour at AfD when performing non-admin closures. I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes. Although ST describes himself as a deletionist, it is definitely concerning for me when he continues to !vote to delete articles where other editors have taken the time to improve the article. For example, here and here. The lack of care and attention really is striking and the failure to revisit deletion discussions is a disappointment. AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion, something which ST does not adhere to. I posted on his talk page as per the link above, but I received no such reply about his AfD contributions. Every editor should be open for constructive criticism for their edits, but, not in this case it seems. --st170e^talk 12:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment SwisterTwister came to my attention over time as I began to recognize his name because his frequent iVotes at AFD were often literally unintelligible, because his opinions were so clearly contrary to evidence that I or other editors had presented, and because articles he so often brought articles to AFD with an assertion that his searches have found no significant sources, and yet by even doing something so simple as clicking HighBeam in the tool bar in Swister's nomination statement proved the contrary. [[45]] He edits so incredibly fast that I am almost persuaded that he simply takes pages with a smallish number of sources and editors, and throws them up at AFD without searching at all - or even without reading some of them. And that his iVotes at AFD are exactly what they look like: opinions rendered without querying the sources. (Copious examples brought by several uses in discussion on my talk page [46].) The problem with all of this is not only that it wastes a tremendous amount of editorial time, but that it makes WP a frustrating and unpleasant place to work. One editor in that discussion states [47] that Swister's "belligerence" is one reason why he has stopped giving his time to editing Wikipedia. I am in strong sympathy with that sentiment. Swister cannot, in my experience, be swayed from a deletion position once taken. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, the AFD where I lost my ability to WP:AGF when dealing with Swister, I was clearly exasperated by the time of my Aug. 3 edit, the one that starts "A confession and an hypothesis..." Swister's arrogant, stubborn refusal to consider that he might have acted hastily show why I have come to the conclusion that SwisterTwister's editing is a problem that needs to be addressed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Question - I agree ST's "stay away from me" comments, objecting to deprods and comments/questions at AfD, are completely inappropriate. It seems that's what this thread is about, but it seems to also be about other ST-related issues? My question is whether ST saying "ok I won't do that anymore" with regard to self-imposed "interaction bans" would resolve this thread, or if this is more of an RfC/U sort of thing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am very familiar with SwisterTwister because I do a lot of work at AfD. I will limit my comments at this time to the issue NorthAmerica1000 raises: the supposed "interaction ban" that ST likes to invoke. As far as I can tell there are no formal interaction bans involving ST. It is not possible for a user to create one simply by telling the other editor to "leave me alone". It IS possible to say to someone, "stay off my talk page," and such requests are usually expected to be honored. But that's a user's own talk page. Things like "don't de-prod things that I have prodded," "don't comment at AfD's I nominate" - that kind of demand is invalid and frankly a little ridiculous. (Example: "Stay away from me, that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time".[48]) People who routinely patrol PRODs and AfDs are going to continue to do so, and no user has the right to say "don't do that on anything I initiate". In fact, if a user feels there is a systemic problem with another user's nominations, they are entitled and perhaps obligated to seek them out for evaluation. (In ST's case, the record shows that only 58.7% of ST's AfD nominations actually get deleted, which may be a valid reason to subject them to special scrutiny.) My reaction to this report is that ST should be instructed not to claim an interaction ban when none exists, and he should be told to stop personalizing the deletion process in this way. I did comment on ST's participation in the AfD process at E.M.Gregory's talk page, but that is not the issue being raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to Rhododendrites' question, SwisterTwisters dismissive response to questions raised by other editors is a problem, a particularly destructive problem for the project when he is interacting with new and new-ish editors. But it is only one of the serious problems with this editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, I know there are a number of issues. My question was primarily to clarify the scope of this thread, as bringing in his style of AfD comments and AfD stats broadens the topic from behavior towards other users to the content/style/manner of project contributions. ST has a number of detractors, based on previous ANI threads, and without a clear scope this might spin out of control and end with an overly complex or radical proposal fails to find consensus. FWIW. Maybe I'm wrong, though. :) Might be useful to have subsections for the different issues if they're all to be tackled at once, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with MelanieN, and would add that not wanting to interact is one thing, but outright stating that one is on a ban when they are not, especially on a forum that potentially the whole community will see, is bang out of order. That can do severe (perhaps irreparable, as some people really do believe there's no smoke without fire) damage to their reputation. When he said I'm on such a ban, I assumed he had me confused with someone else; had I been aware of the other cases, I'd have brought it to ANI myself. I have other issues with ST (such as apparent WP:OWNership of edits, as others have mentioned), but I think that's the main one being addressed here, so I'll leave my comment at that for now. Adam9007 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is that this discussion should be just about the so-called interaction bans. Rather than expand this into a huge discussion of all the issues that people have with this editor, that should probably happen in a different venue (possibly AN?), and with a more comprehensive introductory complaint.--MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The one-sided auto-established interaction bans (of whom I am one of the members) are just a minor part of User:SwisterTwister's long term WP:IDONTHEARTHAT attitude. Actually, while there are a lot of problems with this editor, the worst thing is their consistent refusal in engaging any sort of discussion and their apparent rendering any critic as an annoying drama or as a personal attack, because this dismissive approach precludes anyone from improving their contributions and understand their mistakes. When someone tries to engage a discussion in their talk page, the usual response is ST's ignoring the message, deleting it or accusing others of having a personal grudge against them, then in a mixture of self-absolution and victimhood the next step is ST's asking others to stay away and not deprod or vote in AfDs started by them because the votes are in bad-faith. For anyone thinking this could be true, I just looked at my interaction record with ST, and 100% of my keep votes at AfDs started by ST were eventually confirmed by the final outcome. What I requested to ST during my discussions monologues basically was 1) making a minimal WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion 2) Notifying the articles' creators of his prods and AfDs 3) Slow down their activities, including do not mass voting AfDs but on the contrary making more meaningful and relevant comments in the discussions. Not just I have not received any answer to the issues I raised, in spite of the same issues being raised by dozens of experienced editors and admins I have not noted any minimal improvement. I keep in seeing a very bad record as AfD nominator with articles often kept per lack of WP:BEFORE, a lack of notification both for prods and AfDs, and mass-votes at AfDs generally consisting of an ultra-vague and often unintelligible sentence. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has a potential for significant improvements, but in a collective work such as WP this unwillingness to discuss, the inability to hear others and the proofed refusal to improve their behaviour are massive problems. Cavarrone 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My personal read is that User:SwisterTwister's behavior is tolerated by WP policies. You can nominate and propose for deletion as much as you like. Vote to delete everything. You can ignore and be rude or belligerent to other editors. You can be incomprehensible and make stuff up. You don't have to worry too much about policies such as WP:BEFORE because it is difficult to get a consensus that you've violated them and there is disproportionately small consequence for violation. On the other hand, everything I read in the WP:DISRUPT lead appears to apply in this case (including especially the WP:AGF statement in the second paragraph). Policies aside, we need to try to make WP a better place and so perhaps we need to look at applying the remedy described in the WP:DISRUPT nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban from all the deletion-related areas should cover it. They can use that time to try and be more productive elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would urge everyone to limit their comments to the topic laid out in the complaint, namely, telling other editors they are not allowed to comment on anything he does. No evidence for this kind of remedy (block/ban) has been established here, either in the introductory complaint, which was pretty much limited to the "interaction ban" claims, or in followup comments. As I said above, this broader discussion would need a different type of thread, possibly at AN, with a more comprehensive introductory complaint. I have an opinion on the block/ban suggestions and would state it at a more appropriate venue, but IMO this is not the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

May, April, February. SwisterTwister has been here repeatedly this year due to people having issues with them. This is not an isolated incident. Generally the complaints are the same, ST works too fast, does not take enough care, not open to discussion, does not perform due diligence etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The original WP:GAME complaint brought here is an individual instance in a pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. I think it is more productive to discuss the pattern here. We have had previous ANI discussions to deal with the individual instances. If we continue with the same approach, we should expect similar results: discussions that fail to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The U5 was by a user massively removed my Draft nominations who never even consulted with me. Second, a topic ban is not solving the case where I was politely and firmly asked that the user distance themselves to which they agreed to at the Comfort Keepers AfD, stating they acknowledged and understood my thoughts. The subsequent following of me and even rollbacking my contribs thus notifying me in the notifications, took away the purposes of said agreement. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, repeatedly making shoddy nominations which you know are going to be picked up by someone who regularly comments at AFD is inviting trouble. Dont want someone commenting on your AFD's? Stay aware from AFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Offer Hi all, sounds like maybe I've had less interaction with SwisterTwister than others have, but in the extent to which ST and I have worked together, it's been pretty constructive (e.g. successfully resolving an issue of a rejected draft in one case and a contested redirect/merge in another), and at the same time WP:BEFORE is an issue that's been on my mind a lot lately, so if I can be of help to talk this out to a resolution that satisfies everyone, I'm happy to volunteer myself to try. (Partly I'm also motivated to try to assist in this way because I share Kvng's desire to improve the overall WP atmosphere.) I'll leave a message on ST's talk page to this effect in case ST does not see it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• I'll note I have even spent time away recently as my contribs will show and also then focusing with AfC in hopes the user would not come near me, yet it continued so my message had not gone through. Thus, after my repeated requests and comments, I was not confident anything would get the message through, especially if I have noticeably noted it causes me stress, something someone should take to mind, especially if they have agreed to it themselves. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, you are talking as if this was just about one person, and claiming they agreed to stay away. But this is not an isolated thing, not about just one person. In the nine links posted above by NA1000, I find "you have been told to stay away from me" comments to five different people (most of whom respond with something like "Huh? When did that happen?"). In one case you put something that sounded like a threat in your edit summary: "I have specifically told you to stay away, final time"[49] In addition to those five users to whom you said they were banned from interacting with you, there are two others and an IP where you were are less assertive but still saying "keep away from me". This is a pattern with you, and the message you need to get here is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. Stop pretending you can impose some kind of interaction ban based on your say-so alone. It doesn't work that way. You can't tell people they are not allowed to remove your PRODs or comment at your AFDs. We are looking here for some assurance from you that you understand this and won't do it any more. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know it involves more than one person, but the person most severe here still insists in being around me and my contribs when they know they are not welcome to be that close to me; I am certainly willing to assure and have this closed; but I want it to also be understood that I can't work calmly knowing a user is following me that closely and insistent, because it has become WP:HOUNDING. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if it you have an issue with one person in particular - what about the other seven people you said the same things to? You need to get the message here that this is a PATTERN with you, that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and that the community is likely to take some kind of action if you persist in not hearing what people are telling you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations of hounding are baseless and bordering on unsubstantiated personal attacks. They are not following you. If you raise an AFD, anyone is eligible to comment on it who is not under a restriction from doing so. That you do not want them to is irrelevant and something that is your problem to fix. Either by editing in an area you know they do not frequent, or learning to interact with people you disagree with. Even if you were in a formal interaction ban with another editor, this would not prevent them necessarily responding to an AFD you have created, provided they abide by WP:IBAN Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:SwisterTwister, unsurprisingly that's exactly the kind of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT frustrating response which I described hours ago in my post above. Instead of addressing the issues which were raised here (first of all, accusing editors of violating interection bans which do not exist) or elsewhere, your replies just ignore the issues, depict yourself as a victim and accuse the others of bad-faith and wiki-hounding. Will ever there be a chance of accepting a critic as genuine, and discussing it, and starting/trying to improve, let alone admitting some of your actions were maybe wrong? I am frankly skeptic. Cavarrone 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (4th nomination) to the data set, where I explain to ST that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and ask for an explanation of the "talking to the closer" routine.  What I think will be found with analysis of the circumlocutions, deflection of discussion, and vague to non-existent deletion arguments, is a conscious effort to avoid statements that can be reduced by the force of reason.  I stand by my statement there to ST, "I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination..."  That would include visible use of WP:BEFORE including at least one WP:DEL-REASON in deletion nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, why am I not surprised to find you commenting about something that is not relevant to this main thread? Please stay away from discussing things pertaining to AfD, per CIR ("keep because it was kept before" is a pretty good indication). Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The nomination before the 4th nomination is the 3rd nomination, which is a No consensus.  The nominator states that the article "was deleted the previous AfD".  ST could have redacted himself, but didn't.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), admin here. It's simple. You claim interaction bans prevent some editors from commenting on you or, worse, dePRODding articles you PRODded. No such bans exist, so you cannot invoke them. Is that clear? As much as I've worked with you and appreciate your good work, I will not hesitate to block you if you falsely invoke such a claim again--those claims are disruptive and unsettling. Please don't go there again.

  I will give you another unasked for piece of advice: rightly or wrongly you are under continued scrutiny for your work at AfD and at AfC. This problem here is of your own making, and the result of it is more continued scrutiny. Bad idea. If problems are of your own making, perhaps you should try making them go away. Maybe you should consider a mentor, someone to talk to. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: Telling someone to leave you alone is not a ban on them in any way, and SwisterTwister should not be treating that as though it is a ban. I understand how annoying it is to have people following you around objecting to everything you do but you can't forbid them from doing that just by telling them not to. Regarding the previous ANI threads regarding ST, consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong. Those threads shouldn't be used as ammo against him now; they prove nothing except that he gets inclusionists' dander up, and that's more often a good thing than a bad thing. ST had a weird way of expressing himself, but I seldom have trouble understanding what he means. Those claiming he's "incoherent" are overplaying their hand. I'd like to see him put more thought into their AfD comments, sure, but I have also observed that we seem to have infinitely more patience for bizarre and nonsensical keep votes than for bad or formulaic delete votes. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please look at the comments above, which are replete with links to SwisterTwister's comments at AFD, comments that truly do range from meaningless to incoherent. Many minor articles are closed with a tiny number of iVotes, which all too often includes an iVote by SwisterTwister that exhibits no evidence of having searched for sources, and no evidence of familiarity with the topic. And are you seriously claiming that getting editors "dander up" at AFD is a positive good? From my perspective, the intransigence and BATTLEGROUND attitudes at AFD are among the most repulsive aspects of the project, one that certainly drives editors away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "overplaying their hand", Reyk, you are misrepresenting the case when you say that at the three previous ANI threads, "consensus at all of those was that ST wasn't doing anything wrong." There was no such consensus at any of them. The actual closes were "no consensus" May, "no consensus to implement topic ban at this time… The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required" April, and "NO ACTION" February. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm basing my opinion on a reading of the whole discussions, not just the closing statements. The one from February, for instance, closed as "No action" because there wasn't anything resembling a legitimate complaint. Reyk _YO! 17:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Even ignoring your battleground mentality and the lack of AGF, describing the previous ANI discussions as "deletionists vs. inclusinonists" querelles is also a plain mischaracterization, the issues of ST in other fields than AfDs (eg. patrolling new pages in two previous ANI threads and failures in interacting with other editors in the current thread) show how the problems go beyond your simplified and inaccurate depiction. Side note, WP is full of "inclusionists" and "deletionists" who do not crash with other editors, raise criticism or collect ANI threads. Cavarrone 18:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that's unnecessarily hostile. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• The aspersion at the first example I provided atop remains in place at the open AfD discussion. It would be nice if the user would consider striking the offending part ("interaction ban"). If not, perhaps an uninvolved user (e.g. not myself) would consider doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Without implying opinion on this ANI discussion nor any thoughts regarding any statements made here, I have striked out the statement in the AFD. Regardless of how this discussion ends or if anything comes of it, I felt that in the pure context of the AFD discussion itself and in order to help keep the discussion on-topic (aimed towards building a consensus regarding the article's deletion rationale), as well as bearing Adam9007 in mind (he violated no interaction ban), I agree with Northamerica1000 (as an uninvolved editor) that striking that statement out and declaring that no interaction ban exists is the appropriate and right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I support either (a) mentoring or (b) a temporary limit (2 months) on SwisterTwister nominating more than 15 articles per week. This is due to his reckless nominations causing a tremendous amount of time loss. Having gone through a chunk of his edits, I'd say he is a extreme deletionist. I view his editing style as being detrimental to the confidence of content creators who are newbies. Alternatively, I'd say a 1 week block is in order. If SwisterTwister is allowed to continue editing as normal after this thread, I will view that as a sign of contempt towards content-creators by the wiki community. 92.19.186.75 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • IP, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. A one week block would do nothing but punish SwisterTwister. You haven't even attempted to give any evidence that his patrolling isn't a net positive, and you've completely ignored the fact that most of his work, is in fact, very good. Omni Flames (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What we'd like to prevent is further disruptive editing. I agree that SwisterTwister makes positive contributions. I think it is clear from this and previous discussions that there are also negatives. We're not trying to assess his net contribution; There is no formula for that. We're trying to decide if administrative intervention is appropriate to address the disruptive editing. I expect this pattern to continue and so I believe it needs to be addressed. A ban on delete activities will potentially allow us to see proportionally more of the good contributions from SwisterTwister. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I just stumbled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Macnab SwisterwTwister iVote in an AFD he asserts that he had PRODded. I do not want to chase productive editors off, I have been inappropriately attacked on this board, and it feels awful. I truly do not know how to handle this. But I increasingly see it as a sort of WP:OWN]], not unique to SwisterTwister, but perhaps too prevalent among editors who have worked so long and hard on these pages that they have seen it all and think they know it all. I do know that it is wearisome, discouraging, and probably chases new editors off and makes others so fed up that they leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Voting to delete something he prodded (I subsequently deprodded it and MSJapan then AfD'd it) seems consistent and reasonable. What's the foul here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• The issues largely arise due to ST's deletion-related activities, and communication with him with respect to these. The quality of ST's PROD and AfD contributions is poor, to the point of appearing to indiscriminately claim subjects are clearly non-notable and lack coverage simply because the articles concerned have have maintenance tags on for some time, in some cases with sources that strongly suggest notability available on the first page of a Google search, and usually with a deletion rationale that makes little sense. This is disruptive, as is ST's refusal to interact with/take notice of anyone who challenges his behaviour, and is wasting the time of a lot of other editors. A topic ban from deletion-related activities as suggested above would likely allow ST to focus his efforts in areas that cause less stress all round. --Michig (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

na1k is a inclusionist. st is a deltionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an "inclusionist". For example, I have performed over 5,700 page deletions on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban on all deletion discussions, broadly construed, is warranted. The users history of contributions in AFD are, as a whole, not constructive. Further participation in AFD by this user would be damaging to the healthy discussions required for AFD to function. The user repeatedly shows a lack of understanding on deletion guidelines and policies, a combative attitude and it is now reaching the point of disruption. Best would be for SwisterTwister to voluntarily agree to such a ban, and continue as a wikipedian in good standing that contributes constructively in other areas of Wikipedia. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any permanent or longterm topic-ban for ST. For one thing, any TBan for him should be short-term like three to six months (because he does in fact contribute constructively in AfD discussions he has not initiated, and is sometimes one of the few people who !vote on many discussions), and for another thing, as MelanieN has pointed out, this is not the scope or the point of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this ANI discussion needs to be the pattern of disruptive editing in deletion activities. If someone needs to start a new entry here with that scope, so be it but we're here and deep into it now so let's finish this thing. There have been alleged instances of carpet bomb style delete voting with marginally comprehensible justifications by ST. The fact that he is sometimes the only one to comment in AfD discussions makes these potentially disruptive contributions more concerning, not less so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Softlavender. As I said above: there is no justification for discussing a topic ban or block in this thread, because no evidence has been presented IN THIS DISCUSSION to support such an action. Some people are recommending this, apparently based on other previous discussions where other evidence was presented, but those were all closed as No Consensus or No Action, and no new evidence has been presented here. If somebody thinks there is justification for a topic ban, either from AfD discussions generally (which I would oppose) or just from nominating articles for deletion (which I might favor), they would need to start a discussion on that subject, probably at AN rather than ANI, with diffs and other evidence to support the recommendation. What we are waiting for in this discussion is 1) a recognition from ST that he cannot unilaterally ban other people from interacting with him and 2) a promise to stop talking that way. ST has not commented here in several days, and if he doesn't respond satisfactorily soon, I would recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably heading off topic here but, from your description, I find it concerning that so much concerted effort is required to address a pattern of abuse. I would like to see it addressed and I have the wherewithal to complete the work you have requested but I am a WP:VOLUNTEER who would prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia. Collecting or searching out and reporting evidence against a disruptive editor is the kind of notfun project that tends to dampen my enthusiasm for working on Wikipedia. I suspect others may have similar feelings and so the disruption will continue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can make it a formal proposal (subheading) here if you want, based on past history and without a massive collection of diffs. There are certainly others who feel the same way. Personally, if ST doesn't respond here in the next couple of days, I am going to formally propose what I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I am aware of this and I hope you did not miss my point that I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia over addressing disruptive behavior of other editors. For the sake of the project, I do feel strongly that this behavior should be addressed, and I beleive that's why we have a policy about it. Is there someone interested in negotiating these procedural hoops. Is this an administrator responsibility? ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, a relatively new editor, this response more or less tells me that long-standing editors who do a lot of editing on Wikipeida will be protected by other very active, long-standing editors no matter how poor or destructive the quality of their actual editing is. It makes me very glad that the building I work in is not inspected by structural engineers working according to the professional standards upheld and enforced on this board.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new vs. old editor thing other than an a more experienced editor may better appreciate that enforcing policies requires a consensus and it is difficult to reach consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is time to round off this discussion with some actual proposals, and I am about to put mine here in a subhead. Kvng, I didn't mean to imply that you had to round up the material for a full-on AN report. (That is not fun; I did it once and it took the better part of two days just to put the report together.) Rather, I would invite you and anyone else here to put an actual recommendation into words, just based on what has been said here, and post it in a subhead of this discussion to see how much support it gets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying next-steps and for putting something out there. I will do a little reviewing of the discussion here and and maybe work up a second proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I had not caught some of these issues, but I will say that over the last few months, even while using my alt instead of this account, I've been actively watching ST because some of his actions were problematic. To say someone deprodded an article in violation of an interaction ban when you know that an interaction ban does not exist is a bad faith casting of aspersions, and unquestionably actionable when it is part of a larger pattern. This is gaming the system in a nomination to gain favor with those that agree with deletion of an article. This says nothing of the merits, only of the methods. There have been many problems with ST and article deletions and other areas (I'm wanting to say NPP or AFC a few months ago). We are dangerously close to strong editing restrictions at the meta level. We have spent too much time discussing this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis! Great to see you back! 0;-D A question: Back in May you closed this ANI report (which was mostly about NPP), saying "Closing as no consensus to implement topic ban at this time … The short of it is that there is a problem, but it hasn't yet reached the point that a topic ban is required. IF ST does indeed follow DGG's advice and guidance, then hopefully we won't be back here." Do you have anything to add to that now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to just leave my statement as is. It appears plenty of the community sees the problem and I'm not sure I can add much more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My sense is that overall SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. I've stopped reading ST's comments, and my hunch is that closing admins don't weigh them when making a determination; it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• "I find it concerning that he uses the same ambiguous argument for each deletion discussion in which he partakes." (St173 above)

"... SwisterTwister's participation in AfD discussions is not constructive. ... it is almost as if ST is a deletionist robot. I support limiting or banning ST's ability to open AfDs or close them." --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with these two statements. SwisterTwister does not contribute usefully to deletion discussions. I sense that there is good intellect underlying ST's decisions to comment or not comment, and that there is a language barrier, but for a long time, and after a lot of comments, ST is failing to improve his rationale to the level of useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Warning about "keep away" orders

This discussion has gone on for the better part of a week. It has been thoughtful, and various courses of action have been mentioned. But the discussion has not been focused, and as such it is likely to lead to another "no consensus" outcome. I think it's time to propose some actual wording for the outcome or conclusion of this report. People can "support" or "oppose" each suggestion, and let's we can see if we clarify consensus for one or more recommendations.

Here's my proposal: NorthAmerica1000 has clearly shown the existence of a pattern whereby SwisterTwister orders another user to stay away from him, and then "warns" them that they are "violating an interaction ban" if they remove a PROD or comment at an AfD where ST is involved. NorthAmerica provided links showing ST making such demands on eight different people. Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate. ST's response was to blame one other user for "causing him stress". ST has not acknowledged the existence of the pattern, has not recognized it as a problem, and has not committed to stop doing it. ST has not commented here since August 30, even though he has been active at Wikipedia every day. I therefore recommend this be closed with an official warning from the community: that he must stop trying to impose "interaction bans" or "keep-away orders" against other users (except requests to stay off his talk page), and that he will receive temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again.

This proposal does not preclude other ideas. People could support this (rather minimal) outcome and also stronger measures. NorthAmerica mentioned problems with AfC reviews (too many too fast, failure to respond to concerns at his talk page), and others here have raised issues in the areas of article deletion and NPP. If someone wants to propose some wording, an actual recommendation, to deal with those problems, I suggest they do it here in another subheading, so that we can focus on resolving this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Otherwise this could all be brushed under the carpet. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I also think something needs to be done about the pattern of low-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD but the three discussions at ANI this year came to no-consensus on those, and the present proposal seems like a bare-minimum control on ST's misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, you are right that this proposal is the absolute minimum that ought to come out of this discussion. There is room for more. If you can come up with a proposal for what you think should be done, please post it here as "A proposed closure" subhead, and see if it finds support. I think one of the reasons these things keep coming up "no consensus" is that there is never an actual, concrete proposal to discuss - just a bunch of vague waves at possible, undefined topic bans. You or anyone else could help solve that problem by defining a proposed solution and posting it here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To reduce the likelihood that similarly troubling behavior and unfounded accusations will continue, I propose that the warning be extended to encompass not just the self-imposed "keep away" orders but any on-wiki accusation of harassment made outside of ANI. If SwisterTwister believes someone is harassing him, he should make a complaint here; he should not be allowed to use such allegations as a debate tactic or to embarrass others. Rebbing 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support that extension of the warning: that he must not accuse anyone of harassing him, stalking him, hounding him, etc. at any Wikipedia talk page or edit summary, but only here at ANI. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• MelanieN should get credit for keeping focus throughout this process.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support  WP:CONSENSUS states, "When agreement cannot be reached...editors...try to work out the dispute through discussion."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. If this continues, a block is necessary, but for now, just a warning. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Acting as if you can unilaterally stifle discussion is pretty antithetical to the project. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• comment Perhaps something could be done along the lines os the current discusion on this board of JohnPackerLambert, to restrict the number of articles that SwisterTwister can PROD or bring to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think I prefer not to ¡vote on this, but since I've already said something similar on ST's talk page I feel comfortable repeating it here: I too have a sense that something that goes toward reducing the underlying source of friction (while still allowing participation) would help produce a good outcome for everyone. This has understandably become a significant stressor for numerous people, and I think dialing back the opportunities for conflict would be a good way to give everyone a breather, get back on firmer friendlier ground, etc. I'm not sure a warning or a block is likely to have that effect. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Editors don't have the ability to propose their own interaction bans. If they did this would certainly be gamed. The community and ARBCOM can place an interaction ban. This is more akin to fillebustering in an attempt to keep PROD's from being challenged.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support SwisterTwister may not ask others to leave him alone, as there is a history of problems. If SwisterTwister feels harassed by any user, I suggest inviting MelanieN to offer to mediate for SwisterTwister. I think that in most cases, it is SwisterTwister who needs something explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I decline. Maybe somebody else will take it on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see the problem as the "do not comments here" but using the term "interaction bans." I feel like the issue is beyond the communication one to a greater point about the editing behavior but that isn't at issue right now. I don't think they are productive but I don't see an actual problem with this edit (probably the summary though) and I don't see how that's actually different than what a lot of other editors do. The truth is, that exact same comment could (and was) be made on the article talk page following the deprod. Now, I agree that a warning against using the very specific term of "interaction ban" should be made as that's a specific term that isn't appropriate at the AFD but I think a complete ban on noncommunication is unnecessary. I agree that it's not productive if you are going out there PRODing articles and AFDing them to decide not to respond to particular individuals but that's ultimately going to hurt ST's ability to convince people not anyone else. If people have an issue about ST's prods, well we seem to have a weekly ANI discussion about that but that's not this issue today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support to this (minimal) action, uniterally banning editors from deprodding articles ST (often wrongly) prods or from voting to keep articles he nominated for deletion, and warning them for that, is not just inappropriate, it is not acceptable. The only purpuse I can imagine for this actions is to discourage such experienced editors from reviewing ST's questionable work, and to dismiss their arguments. Lack of response by ST in spite of multiple requests (and pingings) to provide a relevant comment here are enough evidences of the issue still existing and potentially repeating. His only two comments in this topic were complaints about a non-existing WIKIHOUNDING, with nothing addressing his actions or suggesting he understood the problem. A mentorship would be also useful to prevent further ANI theads related to other issues. Cavarrone 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. MelanieN's carefully thought out proposal is a minimal but effective manner of preventing disruption caused by ST's unfortunate pattern of false statements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Question - What is an offical warning and what would be the consequences of ignoring such a warning? ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

An official warning is one delivered to him by an admin as a result of this ANI discussion. The consequences would be temporary/escalating blocks if he makes this kind of comment again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - but only because to oppose would result in no action whatsoever, again, and reinforce the perception ST must, by now, have that there will never be any repercussions for his problematic behaviour. The poor-quality contribution to CSD, PROD, and AFD will need to be addressed eventually, as evidenced by the regularity with which deep concerns about their negative effects are expressed - but today, it seems, is not to be that day. -- Begoon 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: See Kvng's proposal below. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note that in at least some instances, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Gagliardi SwisterTwister's lonely and unsupported opinion can indeed (contrary to some opinions above) trump editors bringing The New York Times and the London Evening Standard as evidence of notability (AFD on bio of minor figure in the art world).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a new-ish editor, I was shocked when my attempts to interact with SwisterTwister were met by accusations that I had violated some unknown rule by contacting him: I genuinely thought that I had done something wrong. I have of course overstepped rules, not so often anymore, but long-term editors may forget how Byzantine the rules here are, how long it takes to learn the ropes, and how very intimidating it is to new editors to be told that one is in violation. Unfortunately, Swister is not the only editor on WP who WP who threatens inexperienced editors by falsely accusing them of violating a rule. This sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is deeply WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, and needs to be halted when it occurs. As here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As MelanieN says, "Consensus here is pretty much unanimous that this kind of demand is invalid and inappropriate". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is a form of bullying behavior, apparently (to this observer) being pursued as part of a deletionist agenda. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support, but I've seen similar behavior from other people, and in other directions. As E.M.Gregory says above, this is not uncommon in various situations. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I have personally experienced this behavior, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and it needs to be addressed. The proposal is a good start. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. No user should claim an interaction ban if no such ban exists.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support This conduct needs to be addressed and a warning from an admin on behalf of community consensus is appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure how much effect this would have but it can't hurt. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A proposed closure: Topic ban on deletion activities

According to MelanieN, multiple resolutions may be proposed here. I have tried to write this one as a step beyond what she has proposed above. There should be no conflict supporting one, the other or both proposals (though I assume most editors supporting this proposal would also support Melanie's).

I beleive the behavior described in this thread including accusations of WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, WP:OWN and ongoing reports of failure to follow WP:BEFORE clearly constitutes a longstanding pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. The reported disruptive behavior is associated with deletion-related activities in WP:NPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:AFC and WP:PROD. The user has been reluctant to discuss criticism and shown no intent to change behavior. To prevent additional disruptive behavior a topic ban on deletion-related activities is appropriate. My proposal is a 30-day ban on the following activities where the disruption has been reported:

1. Nominating articles for deletion through WP:AFD or WP:CSD
2. Proposing articles for deletion using WP:PROD
3. Declining WP:AFC submissions

I propose that the user be allowed to continue participating in AFD discussions started by other users. I am hopeful that the official warning proposed above will adequately address disruption in these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am leaning toward support of this proposal. It addresses the issues brought up by many people, but it does so modestly. It is limited in scope to the proposing or nomination of articles for deletion, where his record is frankly dismal (less that 60% of his AfD nominations result in deletion), and to declining AFC submissions which is a similar activity. It allows him to continue to comment on AfDs nominated by other people, where his commentary has received some criticism but is not disruptive. It is limited in time to 30 days, which is not punitive but more of an attention-getter and an inducement to improve. Assuming he resumes such nominations after the 30 days, his work could be evaluated; if it is still disruptive, the topic ban could be extended or possibly made permanent. I would also like to see him start a Twinkle log of his CSD and PROD nominations, so that they can be evaluated more systematically, but I don't suppose we can compel him to. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Just to remind people, WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed in the past and, though it's considered good advice and strongly encouraged, consensus has been that making it strictly compulsory would cause more problems than it would solve. Wikilawyerish shutdowns of AfDs on obviously hopeless articles, and deliberately trying to infuriate deletion nominators are the big two problems that have been identified previously. Reyk _YO! 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think SwisterTwister was actively trying to game the system. I think that because of stress, he misinterpreted our policy on wikihounding to believe he could unilaterally impose interaction bans. Alright, he's been chewed out for that, and there's a separate proposal to back that up with an Official Warning. I've voted to keep a few of the articles he nominated for deletion, and he's never said a negative or rude thing to me ever. In fact, sometimes he sends me a "thanks" for voting. There's been no consensus that his work at AFC or NPP is disruptive, and no new evidence has been provided. Despite popular misconception, WP:BEFORE is neither policy nor guideline. I don't see a good reason to topic ban him from any of these areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ST does not claim interaction bans or other rudeness for everyone. I encourage you to consider the possibility, based on evidence provided in this thread, that his behavior to others has been inappropriate. And, if you find this to be so, support this proposal to improve this situation for your fellow Wikipedians. An oppose vote means that you do not beleive that ST has been disruptive to the community. An oppose vote is not an appropriate way to indicate that you have not personally been affected by ST's behavior. Also, aside from WP:AGF, the reason for disruptive behavior is not really something we should give a lot of consideration to. Please have a look at the second paragraph of the lead in WP:DISRUPT. This is where I personally believe this is coming from. But, as the policy says, it's not a reason not to address it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to do something about the general atmosphere of incivility at AfD, but, like I said, I think SwisterTwister got stressed out and reacted poorly. My interactions with him are a demonstration that this behavior is out of character. I don't think he'll cause any more trouble. He's an extremist, yes, but he's merely the flip side of the inclusionists who vote to keep nearly everything. I don't think that's especially disruptive, though it can be frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Because SwisterTwister's editing in these areas have indeed been WP:DISRUPTIVE to the project, in exactly the ways articulated above by User:Kvng.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the first of a sequence of escalating remedies, rather than because I think this has much chance of being effective by itself. ST needs to find a way to contribute here that is not just rapid-fire indiscriminate deletion contributions. A month may be long enough to cause that to happen, but without some sort of mentorship I don't hold out a lot of hope for change. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - 30 days isn't enough if this is a real problem. To me the big issue is that this user is said to be making non-administrative closures of deletion debates — which I find appalling. This is not a person I would trust with administrative buttons — way, way, way skewed to the deletionist end of the spectrum. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that only administrators are not allowed to close AfDs if the result is delete. I find it hard to beleive that ST would do a closure unless the result was delete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Kvng: He's actually closed quite a few AFDs (tool) as keep, including this lovely "speedy keep" where he determined that the school's statement on its website that it was accredited was itself sufficient to make the school notable. Rebbing 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support If it causes ST to re-evaluate his behaviour when it expires, good. If not, then as David Eppstein points out, it can be escalated. -- Begoon 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is basically an attempt to win arguments by removing an opponent. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  That's, ironically, a very good description of ST's behaviour, and would be an excellent "support" rationale in the section above. It doesn't, however, apply to the genuine concerns of many experienced users, expressed over a long period, regarding damaging and disruptive rapid-fire deletion contributions lacking necessary care and the unwillingness to alter this behaviour.-- Begoon 04:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  his attempts to persuade people not to revert him were improper, even tho they had no actual force--this is trying to institutionalize it on the other side DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  I disagree. This is a community discussion about appropriate steps. I think it's fine to oppose because you don't feel a restriction is warranted. I'm less comfortable with an oppose that suggests supporters are trying to "win arguments by removing an opponent" or "trying to institutionalize it on the other side". I certainly feel mischaracterised by those suggestions. Not to the extent that I care very much, because I know it's incorrect, but enough to niggle. -- Begoon 05:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is intended to address ongoing disruptive editing. Disruptive behavior in AfD discussions is probably not particularly effective at winning an augment. But it does help create an environment of hostility which eventually removes others from the discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

True. Mild-mannered, congenial people are all too likely to be driven away. As are edittors new to htis area of WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've unfortunately seen this user's bizarre/incoherent behavior at more than a few AfDs and unfortunately sometimes at AfC over the past year or so. That type of behavior can be very damaging to Wikipedia (leading to improper deletion of others hard work on Wikipedia articles and/or frustrating/alienating new article creators on Wikipedia). This kind of long-term behavior needs to be stopped. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I've not found ST's AfD activities disruptive. In the areas that I mostly participate (Companies, Business, and Businesspeople), ST's nominations and participation has been spot on (with one notable example of the winery article above). ST has a knack for bringing up "promotionalism" which is (IMO) is a big issue on Wikipedia. The AfD process is cumbersome as it is, and to penalise someone for using it is not constructive, in view of Wikipedia being inundated with "corporate spam" and promotional BLPs.

The Comfort Keepers AfD discussion was a good example. The first AfD closes as no consensus following an extended discussion and examination of sources. After the article was trimmed of fluff coverage and local sources not much remained. The second AfD resulted in an unanimous "Merge" vote to parent company. It was a good result overall, but it took lots of discussion and 2 AfDs to get there.

In my view, the sanctions proposed would have a chilling effect on editors participating or planning to participate in the AfD process. One just needs to have a look at CAT:NN backlog of 60 000 articles, or see the low activity at AfD, some of which go beyond three weeks for lack of participation. So I would encourage anyone commenting in this thread to take the time to assess three article from CAT:NN and/or participate in three AfD discussions per day. The process would definitely benefit from wider community engagement. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:K.e.coffman I took your point, went to Cat:NN, clicked almost randomly on Criminal Conversation mistaking it for the old-fashioned legal term. It turned out to be a minor novel by a notable novelist. I continued with 2 entries just below it. Sourced one of them, but my 3rd click led to a minor politician who had run for and lost for statewide office in Oklahoma. For this I needed to run a news archive search, Bill Crozier is a somewhat unique name, searching him + Oklahoma showed that it was at least the 2nd statewide office he had run for unsuccessfully, but all that I could find otherwise on this 2008 article tagged for N in 2013 was a small amount of routine coverage of those campaigns. I PRODDED it. Now I am not at all certain that I searched long enough or hard enough. I used Proquest, should I have also used Highbeam? Provelt? JSTOR? And, really, I ought to have searched also on "William Crozier", and maybe checked if he sometimes uses a middle initial Lesson learned: assessing notability notability of old articles is a painstaking task. It is impossible to assess them at speed. But it is all too easy to SPEEDY or PROD a minor article. If an experienced editor goes through and Prods say, an old Elmore Leonard or Ed McBain novel, or a minor politician form a few years back, teh article is very likely to disappear. We operate on a trust system, i.e., that when an editor PRODS, SPEEDY, or AfDs an article, it is because they know have determined that the topic is not notable. (I am aware that controversial topics are regularly deleted on political grounds) but, in non-controversial areas we operate on trust, and the exercise you set up has persuaded me of how deeply and regularly SwisterTwister has violated that trust by PRODDING and AfD-ing articles on topics that he has not looked into.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ran that search again, he uses Bill, William very rarely, and I am now confident that he is not notable. Searching to establish non-notability is usually time-consuming and there is no shortcut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm inclined to assume that Swister was perhaps stressed and misread wp:hound to think that he could give out ibans, but after this thread, I'm going to assume that he won't make the same mistake again. There's been no evidence provided of Swister's disruptive behaviour at AfC; in fact I find his quick declines of promotional PR waffle there very useful, but the bigger problem there is that he doesn't reply to queries left on his talk page, which is a vital part of the AfC process, and alienates new users. I think however a warning will be sufficient, and whilst there seems to be a problem with his AfD nominations, I can't agree with this proposal because of the inclusion of a ban from AfC, which I disagree with. jcc (tea and biscuits) 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on smell instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. per guy1890. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Firstly because the proposal seems to require strict adherence to WP:BEFORE which, as I argued above, is off the table as far as I'm concerned. I also oppose bundling together the AfC and AfD stuff because there hasn't been a convincing case that his Articles for Creation work is wrong. As others have mentioned, ST has a better nose for spam than most and performs valuable work keeping advertisements off Wikipedia. The only behavioural issues I see are the poor quality and allegedly "incomprehensible" votes (which I seldom have any trouble understanding) and the habit of telling people to go away and then pretending that is an actual ban. Well, if we are going to ban people from AfD for robotically making weird and low-quality votes then there will need to be quite a cull on the inclusionist side too and I do not think many of those wanting to ban ST will want that at all. As for the unilaterally-imposed IBANs, it looks now like just telling him to stop has had the desired effect. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Although during the proposed ban on deletion activities, WP:BEFORE adherence would be irrelevant, the proposal does not require WP:BEFORE adherence. I appreciate that WP:BEFORE can be a problem. However, most editors are able to negotiate this. There have been ongoing complaints about ST and WP:BEFORE and so I listed this as part of his pattern of disruption. With only 60% of his deletion nominations being deleted, I have to take issue with your claim that ST has a "nose for spam." I agree that we haven't had a lot of discussion about AfC behavior at ANI. The issue there is the same as WP:BEFORE, rejecting submissions based on his "nose" instead of doing the research. He also does not reliably handle queries from AfC authors on these rejections. If you need evidence about these issues, you can either go find it yourself or make a suggestion to alter the proposal remove AfC contributions from the proposed ban. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as written, because of the prohibition against declining AFC submissions, and many AFC submissions are crud, and good declined AFC submissions can always be discussed with the reviewer or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support However if there is a *better* way of making sure ST takes more care over their AFD submissions (I dont think the AFC is really an issue) it needs to be proposed. The failure rate is too high when those failures are causing significant disruption - both in time wasted and in general irritating other editors. Perhaps some sort of mandatory second opinion before raising an AFD? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support and suggest serious mentorship in the meanwhile. At a different stage I would had supported a simple warning or even a "friendly advice", but such politics clearly failed, as ST is quite coherent in ignoring opinions, suggestions or advices from wherever they come. There are long term issues in this field, and ST has showed so far a constant unwillingness to discuss them, let alone admit them or trying to change behavior. ST needs to finally reflect on them, and to understand these issues could lead to more serious consequences. A month long-break from deletion activities could be precious and could prevent more severe administrative actions in the future. Cavarrone 22:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Yes, quite clearly. He keeps ignoring opinions, and his apparent refusal to respond to new users at AfC is disturbing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A month-long topic ban from AFD, NPP and AFC? No way, I don't think some of the people commenting here realize just how big the backlogs are, at least in the latter two areas. They're both thankless jobs which we desperately need more help with. If there are problems with a user's participation in those areas, we should be trying to help them, not topic ban them. As for the interaction ban issue, I'm confident that ST has learnt from his mistakes and will be more careful in the future. Omni Flames (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Many have tried to help. ST's typical response is to ignore though there has also been belligerence. ST does do a lot of work and that's useful and I've tried to construct the proposal so as not to interfere with his productive contributions. I have not proposed a direct ban on NPP activities though he would be temporarily banned from deleting new stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I continue to see good work from ST. He does sometimes seem to favor speed over quality, but I think he's trending in the right direction.--Mojo Hand (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Only a one month topic ban may not be long enough, but a good start. The user has not yet expressed in any way that they understand what they were doing wrong, and the user has not yet expressed in any way that they are willing to work to improve their methodology. Any comments about backlogs is downright preposterous and relies on the invalid assumption that this user is "too big to fail". They are not. They are disruptive to the deletion processes here, and they need to be woken up. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While ST may arguably have a penchant towards speed over quality, I am familiar with his work which manifests an undeniable dedication to the project and is thus a net positive needing no special sanctions. I am sure that he, as a mature individual, will learn from this exasperating ANI thread, and will take care not to appear here again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  I know you are familiar with NPP, but I also know you are keen to increase the quality, so this surprises me a little. You say he'll learn, and take care not to appear here again - but isn't that exactly where we were two or three times already? Why would this time be different? Also, I'm more than a little concerned that we haven't yet heard this from him. -- Begoon 16:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm in favor of making blocks and bans punitive. However, that's not the policy here. This recommendation sounds punitive for behavior that is really just bothersome and sloppy. I'm supporting the official condemnation in the hopes that an otherwise good editor can right the ship. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You may see it otherwise but this proposed block is not intended to be punitive. There is a pattern of bothersome behavior that many see as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The community has not been able to address through discussion on talk pages or here at ANI. The behavior has continued through these attempts. I am aware of no reason to believe it will cease without intervention. The proposed block is intended to prevent it from continuing. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. In the absence of a commitment from ST to take the feedback on board and improve the quality of his contributions in these areas I feel this is necessary. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's AFD nominations frequently demonstrate an alarming lack of preparation. This wastes a significant amount of time and goodwill in a project area (AFD voting) that suffers from a lack of participation. Worse, his refusal to respond to reasonable questions and to withdraw when overwhelming evidence has been offered to satisfy his concerns (see, for example, the Willamette Valley Vineyards discussion) only compound matters. I have no opinion about his PRODs. In line with BITE and ADMINACCT principles, I think it's inappropriate to fail to respond to good-faith inquiries about declined AFC submissions, even if only to say: "Please re-read the comments I left on the draft." I don't view this proposal as punitive; I see it as a way to help SwisterTwister be more useful. (Technical note: I assume this proposal doesn't cover requesting speedy deletion for attack pages (G3 or G10), for pages in his own user space (U1), or for moves (G6).) Rebbing 18:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

kick to arbcom

Not likely. Blackmane (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:7A (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Why? Your comment sounds like stirring the pot. There's a proposal above that's currently being discussed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Uh.... No. Why would they even accept this case? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

user:Mathsci not respecting 'in use' template

• warning (17:10, 31 August 2016) not to do so after a first removal of the {{in use}} template at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (17:00, 31 August 2016)
• removing the template again (17:13, 31 August 2016)

Pinging Bishonen as I read something about editing conditions on Mathsci's talk page which seems like Bish knows more about, and I'm not going to investigate (probably totally unrelated to this, but nonetheless). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mathsci notified --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Can an admin undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken's current editing restrictions resulting from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis_Schonken's_disruptive_conduct_is_preventing_content_creation_on_Orgelbüchlein

I am the principal creator of Canonic Variations which has stayed in a stable state since its creation at Christmas time in 2009 (when I learnt to play the variations on a famous German Christmas carol). In addition I created the lilypond files from which the midi audio files were created (now on commons). Francis Schonken is not creating new content but fundamentally modifying a stable article to suit his own preferred format for sacred organ music by Bach. He has not sought any consensus. As fate would have it, I am the main editor on wikipedia who has created content on sacred organ music by Bach. I reverted his edits per WP:BRD because I did not think his changes benefited the reader in any way. He did not respond on the talk page but reverted. That is not how BRD works. There has been no prior discussion and I fundamentally disagree with his edits. Why has he not explained himself?

On a previous occasion (see the link above), Francis Schonken made similar edits to BWV 625 in Orgelbüchlein, one of the 46 chorale preludes described in detail in that article. As a result of my ANI report and his disruptive editing on other articles on Bach's religious music (eg BWV 4), he was limited to IRR per month. He has tried here to circumvent this by adding an "in use" tag to the article while not adding new content. Then as now he was simply removing material he dislikes (text and images) and reformatting my content. Why has he not had any discussion on the talk page of the article to explain what his thinking is (beyond what he wrote about BWV 625)? This particular article has stayed stable since its creation in 2009, so the large scale reformatting without adding new content is unprecedented. I do not own the article but I disagree with the changes Francis Schonken made. He has given me no opportunity to discuss his radical changes to a stable article. He is repeating the conduct that led to the previous report. (Orgelbüchlein is still being created as the to-do list on the talk page indicates.)

I am currently busy editing BWV 39, at present creating hundreds of lilypond files off-wiki which result in audio files like these:

These take a long to time to create because every note of every instrument (including the figured bass, for which I use two recent scores) has to be encoded, checked, voiced with a soundfont and modified for barqoue articulation/dynamics, etc, etc. The new techniques I have learnt in this exercise apply equally well to the audio files in Canonic Variations which can be recorded as permanent ogg files with baroque organ sound fonts. Unlike midi files these ogg files do not rely on readers' software. BWV 39 was originally written using CD liners instead of academic books. I am gradually correcting that. I have made just under 450 edits to that article. I started by adding a large number of new sources to replace the CD liners.

I have no idea why Francis Schonken has not entered into a discussion on the talk page of "Canonic Variations". Escalating things to ANI is a strange thing to do, without prior discussion. His editing restrictions arising from his edits to articles on Bach's sacred music are still in place. The same type of edits as he's making now were what precipitated those restrictions. Perhaps he could explain here why he has not started a discussion on Talk:Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her". I know the material and sources very well and am surprised to see a stable article so radically changed in this way. I'll keep asking the same questions. Why has he not discussed this on the talk page? Examples of new content are edits like this on BWV 39: [50] and this on Orgelbüchlein: [51]. In that case I add in use tags for the sections. Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which "recent scores" are you using for the figured-bass realisation, Mathsci? Are you sure that they are out of copyright? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In all I have consulted six sources, including old and new vocal scores, but have invented the figured bass myself as rudimentary chords, using what I was taught as a schoolboy about realising a figured bass. Two recent explicit realisations, which have complicated right hands, have been useful for guidance; equally well Bach's own autograph manuscript, written a full tone lower. The right hands have to be simple and unobtrusive so as not to interfere with the two alto recorders. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Again, can an admin please undo this edit and explain to MattschiMathsci to please respect "in use"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request? The only way this will be resolved at all is for you to discuss the matter. So discuss. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re. "Have you read Mathsci's comments above, posted half an hour before you repeated your request?" – Yes, they are totally unrelated to my request. The only slim analogy I see is that Mathsci asks to be left alone when working on articles: that's what I ask too, for a few hours (when there is an {{in use}} template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I say no, too, and concur that discussion is the way. Since Francis Schonken pinged me: yes, I know about Mathsci's editing restrictions, I formulated them (at the behest of the community) and here they are. It doesn't look to me like they have any relevance to this kind of conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: there I read:

"I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."

At WP:TALKNEW I read:

Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)

Then, these are MatschiMathsci's talk page comments [52], starting with the section header "== Francis Schonken's edits ==", followed by his opinions against me. That doesn't look like "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" to me. Could you please address this situation? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is obvious gaming. Francis, you can't use the in-use template to evade your 1RR editing restriction, namely "Francis Schonken is restricted to one revert per page in any calendar month. The restriction is to last 6 months and applies to all pages except his own user and user talk pages." [53]. Mathsci is indeed by far the principal contributor (97%) to the Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her": [54]. The in-use tag and this ANI filing constitute classic WP:GAMING, and if I were you I'd withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you. You're merely re-engaging in the same disruptive editing which got you that 1RR editing restriction in the first place, and on an article by the same editor [55]. Pinging Johnuniq and Voceditenore for further review. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing those links which show that FS needs to proceed differently. Nevertheless, Mathsci should follow the "dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments" advice above—there is no need for an article talk page to have a section with a user name in its heading. I can understand Mathsci's frustration, and his suggestion about the six articles that might be created is good, but both sides need to reduce drama and find a way of making the same content points without the commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, these two can't seem to stop insulting each other. Mathsci just reverted Francis on Orgelbüchlein with the edit summary "it's not very bright classifying organ music as instrumental" [56], when in fact organ music is obviously instrumental (not vocal), since an organ is a musical instrument. I believe this violates the promises that were the conditions of his unblock [57]. Pinging Bishonen, who unblocked and made those conditions. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, Francis. No, you shouldn't address other users in a talkpage header. But people do it all the time, because it's one of our least-known rules. When people do it, it may be appropriate to ask them to stop. But it's not a "situation". Bishonen | talk 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
• The problem is Francis is under 1rr which means they *cannot* revert any reversion when they are working on an article. Mathsci is perfectly well aware of this so knows that a single revert will prevent Francis from continuing when working even when making minor changes. The use of the 'in use' template is a reasonable response by Francis so they can work on an article without having to resort to offline editing. 'In use' is used extensively precisely to prevent knee-jerk reverts from interfering when an editor is making changes - clueful editors know to wait until they are finished then judge based on the final result. I dont see from the edit-cycle above that there has been a reason provided for reverting other than 'I dont like it, you need to justify making changes', which is pretty much the essence of ownership. In Francis' case it means if anyone just ignores the in use template, he has to stop working straight away. At this point I think a 2-way interaction ban between the two should be considered, its clearly becoming disruptive, and as Softlavender points out above, has degenerated to insult edit summaries. Either that or topic ban them both from the area and let someone else deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth? I already privately discussed your editing with arbitrators (and Bishonen), particularly the false allegations you made about me in a previous ANI request. This is more of the same. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh what a surprise, you once again (I think this is the second or third time actually) make reference to an account on another website in a blatant outing attempt. But by all means, continue to attempt to out me in violation of policy. Shame your 'report' has gone precisely nowhere because it was completely baseless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • You've lost me there. Are you talking about www.bach-cantatas.com? Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Francis added the in-use tag while making a completely undiscussed 1,000-byte deletion [58], as if the tag would somehow give him impunity from reversion of his undiscussed mass deletion and subsequent complete re-working of an article Mathsci has built from the ground up. This is exactly the same sort of mass disruption and bulldozing he was engaging in on Orgelbüchlein, which got him his 1RR restriction [59]. Mathsci rightfully reverted the mass re-working once he logged on [60], and Francis spuriously "warned" him in an attempt to circumvent his 1RR (not to mention WP:BRD): [61]. The major and mind-boggling infraction is Francis's and he should get a further sanction beyond his six months of 1RR. Mathsci probably needs some sort of warning or sanction for his ludicrous edit-summary insult (and for the gratuitous "Isn't Only in death taken from the same fantasy novel series as Anroth?" above), but the problematic editing is by far Francis's on this particular article. I don't know that an IBan would work because they rarely do and because of the two editors' overlapping interests; and since the offending party is clearly Francis here we may want a one-way IBan or a topic-ban on Bach's sacred music as was proposed in the last ANI: [62]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A two-way iban would prevent either from reverting the other. If anyone *else* has issues with Francis' changes, they will soon show up. Large edits are not by themselves 'disruptive' and I have still yet to see a credible reason against Francis' work (which would be out of scope here anyway as a content issue). BRD is for unrestricted editors, when you apply it to editors under a 1rr restriction its completely pointless because all the reverting party has to do is not discuss and there is nothing that can be done about it. Really the only alternative that would stop the issue between them is just to ban one or both of them completely from the topic area, as anything else (as has been clearly shown) is just going to end up in gaming the system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no gaming in Mathsci's two edits -- Francis made massive undiscussed changes and Mathsci reverted him to the status quo ante. This was completely acceptable under Francis's 1RR restriction (which was designed for just such undiscussed mass changes and bulldozing that were the reason for it in the first place). The gaming was all on Francis's end, and I'm beginning to think he added the nonsensical in-use tag for his massive undiscussed changes specifically in order to bring Mathsci to ANI (in this silly unwarranted thread) and to goad him. The problem from the beginning has been Francis, and in my opinion Mathsci should not be IBanned because of Francis's misbehavior. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I find it odd that FS wasn't immediately blocked for essentially admitting, by opening this discussion, to trying to game the system in order to get around his editing restriction. My reluctance to call for harsh sanctions against long-term contributors who usually act in good faith (even if they are wrong a lot of the time and can be incredibly aggressive in defending their wrong edits) is the only thing causing me to say he should be given a block of between one day and one week, and keeping me from suggesting that the restriction should be made indefinite, or broadened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't know much about the history here I have 2 comments. Firstly I agree with Ultraexactzz that it seems to me this should have been discussed more rather than brought here.

But I'm also not sure I see a reason not to respect the 'in use' tag. The edits don't seem so harmful that they require immediate reversion like BLPvios. If Francis Schonken and Mathsci were editing at different times, it seems to me the dispute over inuse would never have happened. (Well I don't know how often each person edits but I presume theres at least ~ 7+ hours a day when they generally don't edit when sleeping, eating etc.) Mathsci is free to revert edits they feel are harmful after Francis Schonken has stopped presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag.

If Francis Schonken makes a large number of edits and quite a few of them are harmful and it's too difficult to assess each one they may have to accept wholesale reversion of their edits. It's the risk they take whenever they are editing (since it's always possible no one will notice their edits) but even more so when they are insistant on people respecting the in use tag. (In other words, I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining about all their edits being reverted when they are the one who partially created the situation by making a large number of edits and asking people not to edit while they were doing so, meaning that others didn't notice the problems until they were done and it was too difficult to try and sort the good from the bad.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...this should have been discussed more rather than brought here" – Note that MatschiMathsci immediately removed the talk page section I had opened about this on their user talk page (17:17, 31 August 2016), which they are of course perfectly allowed to do, but indicates "not open for discussion about this on my talk page", ANI being the logical next step.

Re. "... I'm assuming Francis Schonken understands the isuse tag means if they can make some clearly helpful edits along with others which seem more questionable ones, there's a risk it's going to be difficult enough to sort the good from the bad that all their edits will be reverted and isn't going to come here complaining ..." – Of course, I understand completely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re. "...unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag..."

Re. "...presuming Francis Schonken isn't asking for an unresonable timeframe for the inuse tag" – I think a few hours is not unreasonable, and I propose no more for my edits. Here's what I consider unreasonable behaviour for keeping an {{in use}} tag in for two weeks (!) and then starting a slow edit war (!) with the bot that removes an {{in use}} tag after 24H of inactivity:

• MatschiMathsci places an {{in use}} tag 04:33, 10 August 2016
• ...keeps it in virtually without interruption until 17:01, 23 August 2016
• JL-bot removes the tag 21:05, 25 August 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 18:46, 27 August 2016
• JL-bot removes again 22:38, 1 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} 06:30, 2 September 2016
• JL-bot removes again 12:13, 3 September 2016
• MatschiMathsci reinstates {{in use}} tag 19:03, 4 September 2016

(all of this on the same article, see history). MatschiMathsci's excuse: I'm busy with audio files at commons... which has nothing to do with possible edit conflict during a major restructuring (what the {{in use}} tag is for).

In the above I didn't suggest to come down on MatschiMathsci like a ton of bricks, and I still suggest no such thing, but could someone please explain to MatschiMathsci *what the {{in use}} tag is for, that it shouldn't be abused like they appear to be doing, and should be respected when others use them for a few hours* Please. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, I thought I'd chosen the user name Mathsci, not Matschi. Matschi sounds German, whereas Math-sci has a very English pronunciation. Frau Matschi sounds like a shady character Lotte Lenya might have played, with a steel knife ready to spring out of her hob-nailed boot.

Blanking audio files Since 27 August the talk page of BWV 39 has had a section explaining that I am in the process of preparing content for BWV 39#Movements. I have been extremely busy preparing files like this:

together with miniscores, some of which are already in the article. This audio file took over a week to create and is only in a preliminary imperfect state. This 2 minute 40 second file is an excerpt to illustrate the intended commentary on third section of the first movement. Just like the other two audio files in this thread. The talk page of BWV 39 clearly states that I am preparing that content and the encoding of the score is part of that process. So why—without any warning of any kind at all—did Francis Schonken precipitously remove these files while I am obviously still in the process of editing? A slow and scholarly process. I even said the process would be slow; it is very time-consuming. From his edits, Francis Schonken wants to blank all of these audio files and presumably all the other audio files I have created for Bach articles since 2009. But there are audio files everywhere. I have helped others write lilypond code for midi files within wikipedia articles related to Bach chorales. Nobody has ever raised an objection to my audio files: only Francis Schonken this afternoon. He wasn't interested in discussion or on how the article was being edited. He knew somebody else was actively editing the article.

Francis Schonken's wikilinks in section titles Francis Schonken criticised me yesterday for using a wikilink to an article title in List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. But when he created that list in February 2016, he added wikilinks in the section neaders to all wikipedia articles that had so far been written (probably 60-70% of that content is by me).[63] I started creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 today, already having written content on it 6 or 7 years ago in Clavichord#Pedal clavichord and elsewhere. I simply followed his example in the list when I added the wikilink. His response was that he had not added wikilinks in the headers when creating the list. But the diff shows that to be false. How can any discussion proceed in those circumstances

Blanking audio files without discussion (they have been displayed here for a week with no objection and others have been in WP articles since 2009) is also just disruptive. His WP:IDHT attitude regarding the conventions he himself had introduced in his list is also disruptive. But this is the same conduct which got his editing restricted last time. I am editng in my usual plodding and meticulous way, being quietly aided and encouraged by Graham87, the musical wikignome. Wikipedia has all the advantages of multimedia and for some readers audio files in music articles might be a pleasant surprise. Graham87 thanked me for adding audio links to Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 (it sprang form an idea of his). I am also going to make my own ogg files. Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MatschiMathsci corrected. Other than that, Mathsci's comments are –again– off-topic: e.g. the audio files are a content matter, not discussed on this page, but on the article's talk page.

The point being, from the outset of this thread on ANI, that Mathsci doesn't know how to deal with {{in use}} tags, so I still ask the same: that someone explains the purpose of this template to them, explains to them what is excessive use of this tag that should be avoided, and that the {{in use}} tag should be respected when others use them correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken knew that I was editing the section BWV 39#Movements at a relatively slow speed, but he deliberately chose to disregard that. There is content to add to the article. He has been told that repeatedly, yet refuses to understand. I've explained what that involves often enough and will not repeat it now. Francis Schonken cannot dictate the speed at which other people edit. Elsewhere I don't know why he's criticising me for things which are due to him.[64] It is a strange thing to do. He has created similar problems with many other editors and his editing style, sometimes dogmatic and by edict,[dex.php?title=Talk:Brich_dem_Hungrigen_dein_Brot,_BWV_39&diff=737814612&oldid=737745106] has resulted in his current editing restrictions. He recently created a confusing template which was deleted by consensus although he was certain it as the right thing to do. He tried to write Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 on a list page. Suggesting that my audio quotations had no place on wikipedia was an unpleasant thing to do.[65]

The files have a clear educational purpose/value. Francis Schonken announced that he thought one of them almost satisfied his own standards. On the commons page it is described as mimicing the sound of a positive organ. It was created be encoding each of the four snging voicesand then using an old bland ocarina sounfont from expats, Clicks caused By repeated note s had to be removed by manually encoding dozens of microrests into the parts (including repeated notes between separate parts). The initial crackle on ogg files is a linux-related problem: the timidity/debian/ubuntu bug, due to one simple coding error, has been reported on wikimedia pages[66] which seem to be administered by WMF staff like jdforrester. It might also be something to do with wikipedia software. There is no simple workaround for a linux user apart from recompiling another version of TiMidity++ away from the original package. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong there. An {{in use}} template doesn't give you the right to own a page for 24H, 48H, two weeks or whatever other amount of time (even when accompanied with more or less extensive talk page statements). An {{in use}} tag is for "avoid[ing] edit conflicts" when the page is "actively undergoing a major edit for a short while" and should be removed if the "page hasn't been edited in several hours" – adding a media file every few days is *not* a "major edit", nor is that a "reasonable timeframe for the 'in use' tag".

How many and which media files will be contained in an article, is not appropriate discussion material for this board: it is not a behavioural issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New content is being slowly created for the article—miniscores are being meticulously created by me, along with audio extracts, images, etc. While that elaborate and time-consuming process is happening, you have been leaving very negative and irrelevant comments on the talk page. On the other hand you have absolutely no idea about my intended content. I will take all the time I need to create it as the content is not straightforward.

You have been told multiple times by administrators and other editors that your conduct is disruptive and inappropriate. That is the reason that your editing is restricted.

I am slowly and quietly editing one section BWV 39#Movements of BWV 39. Why are you concentrating on my editing of BWV 39/1 and the creation of audio extracts like this:

and musical extracts like this:

Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I sought a third opinion about the above audio file. I was told that the current version has no crackle at the beginning, was of reasonable quality and that it was fine for illustrating the article. That's good to know. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..."

Re. "...Couldn't you please let me edit in peace for while?..." – sure. Same applies for my work at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", for which these two reverts were highly disturbing (as explained in the OP with which I started this ANI thread): the {{in use}} tag Mathsci removed twice from the same page contains "To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed". The first of these reverts had provoked an edit conflict, yet Mathsci proceded with the second within less than 15 minutes, after being warned on their talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken hounding me on the articles I am creating and/or editing —he is using this page as his blog

Francis Schonken seems to be in the process of harassing me by whatever means he can think of. Lately has has made a number of edits which. rather than being to the benefit of wikipedia and its readers, have been designed as attacks on me. As well as preparing content for BWV 39#Movements (I am attempting to create a vocal score in lilypond by combining 12 separate files, but am having problems with the "beaming" of notes), I have been busy creating Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. (I am an organist and play these sonatas.) The article is in the course of creation and will take a while. I don't intend to rush and will set my own pace. User:Graham87 has been helping me. While it was still in the early stages of creation, Francis Schonken started editing the page. Perhaps an in use tag had lapsed during the night, but he moved the title and started tagging the article in a gortesque way.

Even a newbie to wikipedia or indeed a ten-year-old could have seen that Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530 was still under construction. Indeed User:Graham87, who wikignomes on articles, had assisted me at an early stage and apologized for making edits while it was being created. On his talk page, I thanked him for his help and encouraged to help with some of the later sections (discography, arrangements).

I do not need Francis Schonken's help while I am in the early stages of creating this article (it is a list at the moment and does not resemble any of the stable articles I have written on Bach's organ music). The comments Francis Schonken has made here and on Talk:BWV 39 show that he does not seem to have much idea about how I edit complicated articles which require musical quotations and audio files. Even when it speeled to him, it does not seem to sink in; it might be that he deliberately chooses to ignore it. He certainly has not asked me if he can help and has not added any contents to the talk page.

His current editing undoubtedly violates the restrictions he is under. He is nevertheless perfectly aware that the article is in the course of creation. Why then tag it in this way? I would like to be able to edit in peace without being disturbed in the middle of what I'm doing.

This file for BWV 39 eemed simple

but took a while to create, because Bach's beaming is unusual (the way notes are joined together) and also has to fit the notes. The vocal score I'm preparing at the moment is a nightmare. Francis Schonken is aware of this off-wiki work. That is presumably why he started editing an article which he knew I was in the course of creating. Given these disruptuive attacks on an article I am creating, I think his editing needs to be further restricted. Even if I spell out on a talk page what processes are required for creating the article, Francis Schonken has chosen to ignore that and find new ways to edit disruptively and hound me, folowing my edits around. His conduct today has gone past the acceptable limits. Using this page as a blog did not help. It seems to be part of his scheme for following me to articles that I am editing, where he has not been active. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no hounding: here (17:12, 31 August 2016) Mathsci suggested I start articles on the organ sonatas ("Francis Schonken: there are no articles on BWV 525, BWV 526, BWV 527, BWV 528, BWV 529 and BWV 530. These are amongst finest secular works for organ. You could improve wikipedia by creating that content."), and here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") I'm following up on such suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

At it again

Now there's another page where Mathsci reverts the bot that removes stale {{in use}} templates:

• JL-Bot removes stale {{in use}} template 22:49, 7 September 2016
• Mathsci reverts 06:21, 8 September 2016

At the article's talk page Mathsci explains their intentions: "... could other editors stay away? It will take roughly two weeks ..." – Here's a suggestion: could Mathsci do that updating in their User: space? It seems quite inopportune to claim a two-weeks ownership of the mainspace page (see above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 'Francis Schonken knows that the article is in the course of being created. He is now doing his utmost to prevent that. Indeed he is using this thread—like a blog—as an uneding commentary while in the midst of adding complex content. Even before I have created a proper article, he has disruptively tried to move the article and then tried to open a move discussion. From his editing since the opened this thread, his aim seems to be to dream up any possible he can disrupt my editing. He is now gaming the system by transferring the restrictions on edit reversions to page moves. He is attempting to move the page, even before the article has been created in any reasonable form. Francis Schonken is perfectly aware of what a fisrt sate of a finished article looks like; so this disruption is willful.

At present, within the article, there is no material from the principal source beyond the listing of movements, which was composed using one of my private scores. Francis Schonken is currently following me to articles that I am in the course of creating and doing his utmost to disrupt that process (see the previous section), User:Graham87 clearly understood the process of creation, helped with external links and thanked me for creating gthe article. Your editing is quite unlike his. It is pure disruption; an extreme example of why your editing has been restricted.

It is perfectly reasonable that I create this article on my own. Francis schonken has shown that he cannot tell what I have in mind for my edits, cannot prepare either audio or miniscore extracts, and generally has deliberately misunderstood my editing intentions. If he cannot stay away from artivcles that I am creating (taking a leaf out of Graham87's book), I suggest that his editing be further restricted. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And now blanking talk page sections

Mathsci blanking of an entire section at a talk page (07:44, 8 September 2016) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish Francis Schonken would stop using this page as a blog. It is pointless discussing moving an article when it's only in the very early stages of creation. Making a suggestion at this stage is aggressive and designed to obstruct editing on the article. Because Francis Schonken is editing so disruptively, I will ignore his edits in future. He already blanked my audio files with false claims that consensus was against them. While I am busy editing these articles (I have only added the instrumental parts to the vocal score for the extract from BWV 39/1), Francis Schonken is busy finding ways to disrupt my editing. Pure disruption that probably warrants a block at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has violated his editing restrictions

He appears to have violated his editing restrictions with these edits.[67] [68] User:Graham87 thanked me for adding audio files for each of the 18 compositions. Francis Schonken has started a diatribe on the talk page about the files. He is simply piling on his negative commentary while the article is being created. He tries to find a negative spin on anything he can think of. Yet he has absolutely no idea what I intend to add. How can I be expected to edit when I am subject to such disruptive conduct? It is exactly why his editing is restricted. Instead of trying to improve articles for the benefit of the reader, he seems to view them as places to play his games. That is exactly why his editing was restricted. He follows me around to articles and I find that creepy. I have been quite patient with Francis Schonken, but if he cannot stop making disruptive edits like this out of the blue to articles in the course of being created, please he could he blocked? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no violation of my editing restrictions, Mathsci's accusation is disingenious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing:

• Mathsci's prolonged use of the {{in use}} template prevents content creation: here (09:36, 3 September 2016) Mathsci suggests I add content to the organ sonatas article ("...Francis Schonken is welcome to create or help create a table for the section Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530#Earlier compositions and borrowings..") – which is not possible because they won't relinquish the {{in use}} template on that page.
• Mathsci's removal of short-term {{in use}} templates placed by others prevents content creation: at Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" I extended the content with over 1500b – Mathsci removed it all, together with the "in use" template I had placed --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reasonable editors can tell when an article is in the course of being created. Francis Schonken refuses to accept that even after being told multiple times. Indeed he claims that while creating brand new content that has been absent from wikipedia for years, I am exercising WP:OWN while creating that content. Why does he refuse to accept how the process of creation goes? He has been told that the capitalisation in the title was chosen because other editors had created the titles Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel) and Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach) (the first three are articles created by me a few years ago, but with slightly different titles). He knows the article is being created by somebody and seems to be doing his utmost to prevent that editing happening. He is constantly militating against me here and misrepresenting consensus on talk pages with withering comments. Pure disruption. Why can he not respect the process of creation?

Francis Schonken is editing disruptively. Compare him to someone familiar with my editing of articles on Bach's organ music, Graham87. He apologised for interrupting the process of creation on Organ sonatas (Bach).[69] Francis Schonken's edits are the exact opposite. He is determined to find every possible means to interrupt that process. Indeed he followed me to the article and all its redirects I had made. Normally that is called wikihounding or wikistalking (I don't remember which). Presumably he was or is trying to make a WP:POINT. But can he not leave editors in peace while they're creating articles? Breathing down their neck like this and making these absurd reports on this page is just disruptive editing . At 9 am I was busy preparing the lilypond excerpt for a vocal score from bar 23 onwards of BWV 39/1. I hope I can continue doing so, without constantly being interrupted. At present, I do not wish for any advice or assistance from Francis Schonken while creating the content for the article on Bach's Trio sonatas for organ. If he thought I had asked him for help, he was mistaken. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Section for third parties

I had a look at the most recent fuss, and it appears that Francis Schonken has been disruptive. Consider the complete history of the new article Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530. That was created by Mathsci on 3 September 2016, and the history shows him working to build the article. Then Francis Schonken moved the page to his preferred title with no discussion that I can see. We know that no one owns an article and bold editing is great, but hello? Everyone can see that these two editors need to be separated, yet FS thinks it would be helpful for him to fix a new article created by Mathsci by moving it, and then rub it in with a formal move discussion after his move was reverted. It is clear that if left alone, Mathsci would continue developing quality articles. We do not need to work out which editor threw the first stone, we just need the bickering to stop, and this incident shows that Francis Schonken's editing restriction should be expanded. Any suggestions? Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it occurred to me that if we were to levy a fee on both of them - say 10 cents/100 words, 25 cents/image, 50 cents/sound clip - for future additions to this thread we might be able to make a decent charitable contribution when this is over, at least. -- Begoon 11:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fee; it's a donation. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Seek advice from your personal financial consultant for information on any legal, tax, or financial obligations or benefits regarding your donation. Valid only in select areas. Certain exceptions apply.

JustPsymo (repost)

Original Post: JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. --79.12.1.50 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo (talk · contribs) is changing music genre to various artist pages, adding genres following his opinions, also removing sources. I suspect he uses the IP 183.171.181.117, because he did this and 2 days after the IP did this. Other changes here and here. User was reported here -it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/JustPsymo- for the same problems, including the removal of sources and the write-only. I repost it because I posted it wrong, not to the bottom as required, sorry.--87.3.18.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to repeat my longstanding proposal that if we simply eliminate coverage of four low-value subjects -- footy, music genres, beauty pageants, and professional wresting -- traffic here at ANI would be reduced 30%. EEng 23:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. Oh, and porno actors/actresses.
  • Are you seriously proposing that we eliminate coverage of Ludwig van Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Blind Willie Johnson, The Beatles, and everything else having to do with "music genres"? Shirley jesteth thou. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Forsooth, I merely proposeth removing the genre categorizations in infoboxes and leads, my liege! (I suspect that discussions of genres buried in the text proper are too much trouble for genre warriors to find. They all seem to be idiots.) EEng 03:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) And no, I'm not serious. At least not completely.

What fools these mortals are! And calleth me not Shirley.
Seriously, while User talk:JustPsymo remains a red-link, it seems there will be no immortals administrator action taken here. Can someone who groketh WP:ANI closing tags please close this?
Pete "Seems, @User:EEng and @User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, nay it is; I know not 'seems.'" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Other vandalisms today (reverted): here he don't removes genre but deletes a reference. This is pure vandalism, and this is a vandalism-only account that insists also here, in spite of warnings, revert and noticeboard. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Other vandalisms using an IP (Special:Contributions/89.65.151.116). --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

JustPsymo is vandalizing, using an IP to add back his vandalisms reverted by users, as did here. I reported him for ongoing cross-wikipedia vandalisms. I don't think is the case to close because his talk is red. --87.6.30.164 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The first step should have been posting a message on JustPsymo's talk page before going to ANI and then notifying him of this thread. I have done that now and have also blocked IP 89.65.151.116 which had received multiple warnings before. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Gaming the system? (Needs Admin Closure)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016 after surviving an AfD and a deletion review. now has another AfD (The failed AfD closed on 24 August 2016 (no consensus), the deletion review was closed on 2 September 2016 (endorse close) and the new AfD was filled on 2 September 2016). Also the entire article has been deleted and replaced with a paragraph about a 1964 essay that has nothing to do with the specific topic of the 2016 US presidential election. I tried to restore it but was reverted. Could we please have some uninvolved admin eyes on the article, and especially on what I believe to be gaming of the system?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016[70]
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 26#Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (closed)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016[71]]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor
• Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25
• Page before it was gutted
• Page after it was gutted

(Note the "United states" vs. "United States" in the above URLs) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note the closer (User:Sandstein's) comment: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." (my emphasis - VM).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes the second RfD just an easily-fixed formatting problem (it should say 2nd nomination with a link to the first). However, changing this well-sourced article and reducing it to this blanked article when there was no consensus to delete was, in my opinion, gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues". Well sourced my butt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What? That's about as good as sourcing gets for a comspiracy theory, unless you want a source from Breitbart or Alex Jones or something. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Some of the removed material was sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept. I stand by my assertion that well-sourced material was deleted and politely decline Volunteer Marek's offer of his butt -- thanks but I already have one. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the visual. EEng 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I added AfD: Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor as a related AfD above, as relevant to this discussion. I also added Previous ANI discussion, Aug 25, which was started by the article creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There are already two other threads about this here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election.2C 2016 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles for deletion. Can they please be consolidated into one to try and avoid a huge mess. Also please note that it is a holiday weekend in the US so some editors (involved or not) may not be around to respond quickly if pinged. MarnetteD|Talk 04:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is appropriate to renominate no-consensus afds, even quickly, in the hope of obtaining consensus. It is usually more helpful to wait a while, because this increases the chances of actually getting consensus. Of course,in this particular case the interest in the article is to some extent time limited--myself, I think it will indeed be permanently of interest, but I think the arguments here will be less heated.

But the blanking or partial blanking of the article was not appropriate, perhaps to the point of being disruptive and outrageous, and should be reverted. I'd do it myself, except i have a overall opinion on the matter. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is objectively better in its stubbed form than it was previously, though. jps (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not better or worse that way; it's just empty, thus the stubbing is equivalent to out-of-process deletion. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is better stubbed than it was before. Who are you to say that it isn't? jps (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares who I am or who you are. You are saying that an essentially empty article is better than an article dedicated to contentious contents. That's just your opinion. I happen to think that our encyclopedia should not shy away from reporting well-sourced controversial contents. We are WP:NOTCENSORED. Excessive WP:CRYBLP protection doesn't cut it for such prominent WP:PUBLICFIGURES who chose to come into the election fight for the highest US public office. They are much thicker-skinned than you and me. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree this is being discussed in 3 different places and it should go down to one. Also agree with DGG on everything he said (except I've already reverted once). Finally, yeah, this was _very_ well sourced. I think "disruptive and outrageous" is correct. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest WP:BOOMERANG against Guy Macon (talk · contribs) for tiresomely bringing this to AN/I. This is a dispute that does not belong here. jps (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang suggestions when the person targeted did nothing wrong have a tendency to boomerang against the person making the suggestion. I'm just saying. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• You've done plenty. Your petty vindictiveness and penchant for escalating non-issues into dramatic conflicts is well on display at arbcomm even as we speak. jps (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• • While I have no love for the subject matter this is entirely an appropriate place to bring out gaming of the system and disruption concerns. As the article has been completely gutted and replaced with an anti conspiracy essay from 1964, I would consider that as meeting both those concerns. Deleting large sections of articles can be done occasionally but that's like me taking a religious article, deleting everything out of it, then replacing it with an Atheist talking about why religions are wrong essay. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• As the editor who first raised a red flag about this on the talk page of the article, I will state my agreement with Guy Macon that what has happened here is disturbing. The community debated an article that was, and is admittedly controversial. But we could not reach consensus on whether to keep it or not. Then a handful of editors decided that there was enough consensus among themselves to go ahead and delete the article in all but name and reduce it to a POV stub. That is bad enough. But after strong objections were raised by other editors there persists to the present moment fierce resistance to restoring the blanked material. For the record I am no fan of fringe material on the project and have personally nominated many articles for deletion I believed were non-notable and improperly being used to promote tin foil hat ideas. And I also readily concede that this article is not an easy keep or delete. Sound arguments were made on both sides at the original AfD. It may well be that the article will end up being deleted at the new AfD. That would disappoint me, but I would respect the outcome because that's the way this sort of things should be done. If you want to delete an article fine. But unless it is a clearly non-controversial situation, which this obviously is not, do it at AfD. The pro-deletion side came very close to carrying the debate last time around and may well do so at the new AfD discussion. In summary; stubbing an article that the community just said it could not reach consensus on, by deleting all relevant material and then claiming "talk page consensus" formed by a handful of editors who failed to persuade the community at a well participated AfD discussion is, IMO, improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of anybody's opinion on the need for Wikipedia to have this article, the blanking of all significant contents, section by section, with blanking editors cheering each other up, was totally inappropriate, especially as a no-consensus deletion review was underway. I would advocate a fresh start: restoring the full extent of the article and having a wide-open RFC during which the page would be fully protected, then let people edit away taking into account RFC results. Full disclosure: I once restored a section which had been blanked by an editor in violation of 1RR, and was counter-reverted by another editor with an offensive comment; I abstained from further intervention. — JFG ^talk 14:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm torn. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that this is gaming the system (I !voted delete, by the way). An article that does not achieve a consensus to delete should absolutely not be stubbed when the AfD is closed.

On the other hand, I still stand by my !vote to delete. This is too soon to have an article about this subject! When the election is done and folklorists and journalists are writing about the totality of the conspiracy theories in this election, we will finally have an article worth writing.

Now, getting back to the subject of this, I have two things to say.

1. This is absolutely gaming the system, disguised as a content dispute. I usually avoid speculating on the motivations of others (and I actually have a great deal of respect for those who blanked the page), and I will not start now. However, the facts are clear: there is obviously no consensus to blank the page, as anyone can see from looking at this thread. Let alone the article's talk page. The page should be restored to the version I railed against at the AfD. If full page protection is necessary to keep it that way, so be it. We can then go through this new AfD and see if we can't decide what to do with it.
2. That should damn well be the end of it here at AN/I. The justification I see above for a boomerang is... Well, actually I don't see any justification. I see the assertion that this should boomerang, but no reason why (beyond the dangerous suggestion that opening an AN/I case in order to get admin attention is a problem). Furthermore, I see no evidence that the stubbing of this article was done in anything but good faith, by editors who've demonstrated repeatedly their desire to improve the encyclopedia, motivated by concerns that are perfectly coincidental with my own concerns about the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the tough part all right. I too agree with what the out-of-process deleters are trying to do, and will continue to do what I can to convince the community to form a consensus for deleting the article, but on the other hand I oppose gaming the system in this way even when the end result is what I wanted to happen. We all need to follow consensus even when it goes against us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, while strongly disagreeing with the back door attempt at deletion, I do not question the motives of the editors involved. I have worked with some of them in the past on other articles, especially via FTN, and think they are all good editors with honorable intentions. But I do believe in this case their zeal got the better of them. I see this as a case of poor judgement, not malicious editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I support the above conclusion. I don't think anyone meant to do a backdoor deletion, it just happened, a piece at a time. That being said, I do hold those individuals who have used the revert button to undo attempts to restore the material responsible, and I have a low opinion of anyone who supports deleting material sourced to NPR, NBC News, Harpers, Scientific American, CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Snopes.com, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, BBC, and The Intercept just because some other material in the same article is sourced to the National Enquirer. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Based on the above comments and those on the talk page of the article I am satisfied that there is at the very least no consensus to substantively blank the article. To which end I have reverted the article to the most recent attempt by Guy Macon to restore the controversially deleted material. I have also requested full PP to last until the close of the ongoing AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it highly inappropriate to claim consensus on the basis of whining on WP:ANI. If an admin wants to move in and protect the page or something, let them. jps (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

And I've done just that, for a week. Airplaneman ✈ 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I believe large-scale content blanking in this context is disruptive, see Arbcom guidance. JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article has been blanked yet again despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favor of this action and arguably there is consensus against it. I am starting to view this as deliberate disruptive editing and believe that an admin should step in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note It's now been fully protected by Airplaneman. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and protected the page. Now let's get back to actually discussing the actual content rather than citing arbcom cases that are 9 years old. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In this ANI discussion, are we really here to discuss the content? Or are we here to discuss whether content blanking is disruptive? It actually would be nice to have some policy guidance about that. Unfortunately, 9 years old was the best I could do. I'm not questioning the motives of the editors here, but I find it alarming when this sort of thing happens. JerryRussell (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

C'mon, man, do you really think that citing 9-year-old precedent (best that you can do for a reason -- Wikipedia has evolved much since then) is helping us answer the question of what to do when editors WP:BOLDly stubbify an article that was documented to have many problems in an AfD closed as no consensus? Content discussions absolutely should trump (excuse the pun) this kind of stuff. jps (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I could also have cited Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_deletes_the_pertinent_cited_additions_of_others or Wikipedia:Content_removal#Consensus_on_removal, but those are just essays. Or there's the template text itself, which says that articles shouldn't be blanked. It seems to me that removing all but a stub, is not much different from blanking. If the concern is BLP issues about Hillary's head injury, that content could be removed or edited to improve neutrality. The article contains several other sections. If, on the other hand, there's a community consensus at this point that massive sourced content removals immediately after failed AfD's are just fine and dandy, well, I stand corrected. JerryRussell (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Stubbornly stamping one's foot and declaring fealty to made-up processes on Wikipedia is an increasingly problematic aspect of the culture here. What is worse is that there really are no rules per se that explain what you are supposed to do when a discussion about deletion ends in no consensus. The normal thing to do at such point is to return to normal editing. That could include bold rewrites of an article and this is not the first nor the last time that such has occurred. By insisting on ninny-ism that seeks to sneer at editors working to remove problematic content from an article for which there was no consensus to delete, you are contributing to an atmosphere that values process over content, rules over quality, games over encyclopedia. jps (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't the topic, the problem is that it was written as a giant BLP problem with a predetermined POV. When the article describes the opinion of doctors with descriptors that undermine their credibility and then identify them as part of a conspiracy. That is not okay. Same thing with mentioning unrelated indictments without conviction. When one side of a campaign calls an issue legitimate and the other calls it a conspiracy theory (with a a long history of labeling all criticism as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy"), these issues are simply political campaign issues and not something we can cover real time or make conclusions about. The press will cover it from every aspect including legitimate concerns and conspiracy theory. We don't carry their water. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor was deleted. The content was literally copied to an article with "conspiracy theory" as the title. This didn't make the content better, more encyclopedic, more neutral or anything else in WP's interest. If we want to cover candidate health, put it in their bios. If we want to cover the question of health as a campaign issue, put it in the campaign articles. Topics like this evolve and even this weekend, "new revelations" of minutiae will be discussed. We don't need articles on it keeping score and we don't need sections that disparage living people that offer opinions that are sought out by ever hungry press. If there is "Gaming the systtem" occuring, it is by editors creating articles titled from a campaigns talking points and then trashing the detractors. It needs to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I truly have no opinion about the merits of the article. I haven't read it and don't intend to participate in the AfD. But it was restored with an edit summary stating that it should not be blanked again; there is an AfD running, and articles should not be blanked while at AfD, as the template itself states; and then it was blanked again and immediately after that was full protected. I went to the talk page to ask that it be restored but I see a statement there that this discussion supersedes the talk page discussion on the blanking. So here's my request: revert the blanking, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My God. WP:WRONGVERSION is something everyone who hasn't read should take a moment to read. There is currently a discussion on the talkpage as to whether there is decent sourcing for claiming that the Hillary Clinton "health rumors" are a conspiracy theory about the presidential election. They may very well be, but the sourcing needs to be addressed). jps (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose this article is eventually going to be kept. But, if it is, it needs to be kept on a short leash and forced to only mention things which are reliable. pbp 18:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Have you looked at the AfD? I am rapidly losing any hope that the article will be kept. And with the blanked version now locked with little hope of being able to restore the material deleted (despite the clear lack of consensus for the mass redaction) I am more or less resigned to its being deleted. Indeed I am very close to voting for deletion in the AfD myself given the current article is just a POV coatrack and no longer has any real relation to the subject of the title. If you have some reason for your optimism I wish you would share it. I could use some encouragement right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Always darkest before the dawn? I think the current version is less of a POV-coatrack than the version you preferred. In any case, there is a discussion at the talkpage. If you are despondent over this, let's try to come up with a better idea of what a good article on this subject would look like. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ad Orientum: I wouldn't necessarily call it optimism...more like realism or cynicism. COATRACK articles have become harder and harder to delete of late. Plus, 2nd nominations generally trend more keepist than 1st nominations do. pbp 19:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• (1) once an AfD is closed, normal editing resumes, (2) the content that was removed was discussed on the talk page, (3) editor's upholding one of our core policies, WP:BLP is not an attempt to game the system, (4) an argument based on "but it's reliably sourced", still doesn't override our BLP policy, (5) in a contentious topic area under DS, I would expect to see a firm consensus to keep, the first AfD about HC's brain rumor article resulted in delete and the most recent AfD was no consensus, (6) I agree with Dheyward that the topic is not the problem here, the content that was removed per BLP didn't stay focused on the aim and scope of the topic of the article; instead, it drifted off to unacceptable material that focused too much on the individuals. The material was cherry-picked from RS and then used to synth this content together, which resulted in a massive BLP violation, that's unacceptable. Does anyone think The New York Post is an acceptable source for contentious material about a living individual, (7) Clintons campaign article has a section on her health, and Trumps campaign article has sections on Cruz/controversies/fringe/conspiracy theories, there's no reason to create a POV fork full of BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Observation The reason an article goes to AfD is usually that it comprises a predominance of unsourced or poorly-sourced statements. When they fail AfD, we should expect and welcome the efforts of editors who continue to remove the disqualifying content. The ones who are "gaming the system" here are those who insinuate that this kind of normal article clean-up is "back door deletion" and the like. Next one who plays that card should get a time out. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page. There's a talk page section for each item deleted. A good first step in restoring the Ted Cruz related conspiracy theory would be discussing why it should be restored. Same for the other sections that were removed and discussed on the talk page. What happened instead was an accusation that an end run around the AFD process was being made and without discussing the merits of the removal the entirety of the material was restored. An AFD was made that resulted in no consensus. A DVR that endorsed the "no consensus" followed. A new AFD attempting to achieve a consensus has been made. None of this amounts to gaming the system. Removing items from and article and attempting the discuss it doesn't amount to gaming the system.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at that "They removed content, they gave a clear policy basis for the removal, and they discussed it on the talk page" previous discussion for the section I am currently discussing on the talk page, and all I see is a WP:CRYBLP claim that any coverage of Hillary Clinton's health is a BLP violation. The closing AfD admin ruled against the claims of a BLP violation, and the other admins endorsed the close at deletion review. The BLP argument was made during the first AfD. If the closing admin or any admin reviewing the close had found a BLP violation, that would have resulted in an instant delete per Wikipedia policies. "BLP" isn't a magic word that lets you get your way without actually establishing that there is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it but in the close it seems as if it was ruled there was no consensus. I didn't catch where he ruled out the BLP. The BLP is not a magic word. Typing WP:CRYBLP on ANI doesn't remove your obligation to use the talk page of the article and make your case that there is no BLP violation. 1 person opened a discussion that the section on Ted Cruz was a BLP violation. 2 people concurred. It was restored without any actually discussion other than the position that they were making an end run around the AFD. There is a BLP Noticeboard and seen people take discussion there. But for some reason, I suppose since you are "right", you have no obligation to discuss this. And it's not that I am saying you are wrong and there is in fact a BLP violation, I take no position on this. BLP or not, thats a content matter. ANI is for conduct. IMO, there is no case here for any conduct issues. If there is no BLP issue you should have no problem making your case, whether on the talk page or at BLPN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not material about a conspiracy theory regarding Hillary Clinton's health violates WP:BLP has already been decided, and I am not going to re-argue the point with you. If there had been a BLP violation, the closing admin and reviewing admins would have been obligated to immediately remove the material as soon as they identified it. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's already been decided that the was no BLP with that section before it was removed? Then link that discussion. Oh, wait, no that's not what you're saying at all. You are saying that admins have God like powers and you have no obligation to engage in talk page discussion because admins have perused that article. Bullshit!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• When an article has survived a deletion discussion and a DRV, blanking it and then protecting the blanked version is an obvious end-run around our processes. A few editors spamming the talk page with a massive quantity of text does not constitute a consensus that overcomes these processes; in fact, the sheer quantity of text and its argumentative tone is a very effective deterrent to other editors joining in and helping out. The outcome here has been severely suboptimal, and yes, I'm well aware of WP:WRONGVERSION and I'm disregarding it with all due forethought.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Guy Macon just made the same point I made at the article talk page. In my book, that sneer about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement comes uncomfortably close to a BLP violation in itself, and while I've heard bad things about the editing environment at our US politics articles, I'd thought that was a canard. Now with all the sneering and assumptions of bad faith, I'm glad I have to deal with these editors relatively rarely.. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

RE:@Guy Macon:Mr. Macon has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I am linking a comment I placed there in a forgetful moment. Here it is. Mr. Macon has a recent history of disruptive and battleground editing on American Politics. GuyMacon's BLP-violating edit I asked him to undo was, fortunately, immediately undone by a passing Admin, @Acroterion:. Other recent lapses by Mr. Macon at the Seth Rich article include the following: PA edit comment battleground, esp. vs. editor @Steve Quinn: goofy threats failure to engage on talk page threats again etc. etc. At some point, a TBAN from American Politics would seem appropriate. I have posted this here because of @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: jps' suggestion of a boomerang finding regarding Guy Macon. I have unhatted and clarified relevance here. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally oppose the punitive action you are suggesting here. I can not see this as anything but a good faith question about questionable practices. While it is possible to say some of the article falls foul of BLP I sincerly doubt that the entire thing would qualify. The essay replacement of that information is pointy at best and disruptive at worst. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it, I'm endorsing jps' recommendation. It is not punitive. It is preventive. Please don't complicate the discussion with "punitive" SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose to any suggestion of BOOMERANG sanctions against Guy Macon. There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith in raising the issue of the improper blanking of Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016. Those concerns have been echoed by a very large number of highly respected and experienced editors. The above post by SPECIFICO appears motivated at least in part by a heated, but unrelated dispute with Guy Macon. Attempting to use unrelated threads, the legitimacy of which is beyond serious contention, to advance one's side of a personal dispute is pushing the envelope of propriety and could be seen as FORUMSHOPPING and or CANVASSING. The comment which does not in any way address the issue raised in this thread should never have been posted here. I take no position in the dispute between these editors as I am not familiar with it and have no intention of getting involved. But this is not the place to resolve it.-Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If WP had the same functionality as Skype, you all could see my WTF face right now. Usually I edit with a bit of a smile (or sometimes a blank look, complete with drool), but right now, I'm dumbfounded. The 'evidence' given above by SPECIFICO of Guy's supposed poor behavior is beyond specious. In some of those links, I'd venture to suggest that the motivation was to imply wrongdoing while knowing full well that the diff didn't illustrate any wrongdoing. AGF is important, but I really can't reconcile how someone can take that first diff as a personal attack in any way. The only possible explanation I can imagine is that the user damn well knows it is not, but doesn't think anyone will check. In every other link, the claim of bad behavior is either arguable or just a clear misunderstanding of what was being said. This is ridiculous and this thread needs to be closed before it creates any more pointless drama. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this thread needs to be closed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If jps and I am wrong, then this thread will meet no further support. If Guy Macon has in fact shown a pattern of disruptive editing on articles related to ARBAP2 then other editors will voice their views. Either way, the community doesn't close a thread after a few minutes because a couple of editors don't like the subject. As you'll note in Mr. Macon's instructions to me on his talk page, he prefers I raise this at ANI rather than offer him a collegial warning such as the one I copied here. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be closed because it's utter nonsense. While I view Guy Macon's claims here as wrong (but very reasonable), I also clear that they are genuine. He in fact thinks that folks are trying to game the system. There is no reason to believe that he is here in anything but good faith. If the community agreed with me, that his position was wrong, we'd set a piss poor precedent by banning him without some justification of bad faith. Your diffs are unrelated to the topic at hand. I won't bother discussing them other than saying that I doubt any community action and they shouldn't be discussed here. Ciao.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL COMMENT: Could an uninvolved administrator please split this off into a a separate section and give it a neutral title? Specifico has every right to file an ANI report about me, but he should not hijack an existing discussion to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute Oppose to the suggestion Guy Macon should face "boomerang sanctions." Besides, we just had an editor with a long disciplinary history removed Talk page comments from two other editors (I restored) [72]. If that, of all things, is not sanctionable then we've established, by precedent, this page is a total free-for-all. BlueSalix (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• My Final Comment There has been a lot of discussion on this thread. Some of it good and some not so much. More than a few seem to view the merits of the article as the issue. But that's not right. The only issue here is whether or not a handful of editors, likely acting in good faith, should have effectively deleted an article only days after it survived an AfD via blanking of all relevant material. From WP:BLANK...

Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. However, it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. It is also sometimes necessary to blank an article which is a copyright violation in its entirety – for instructions, see Copyright problems.

I respectfully argue that what was done, was grossly improper. And the impropriety was compounded when the blanking was rigidly enforced by edit warring even after other editors objected. If an Admin wants to take some formal notice of what went on here, fine. If not, life will go on. In the end it's likely moot. The life expectancy of the article is probably no more than days given the current state of the ongoing AfD. Arguably this entire argument was pointless since the blanking was a fait accompli and the article is all but certain to be deleted anyways. But I believe an important principle is at stake here. Namely that no single editor or group of editors has the right to unilaterally delete an article by blanking all of its content (save in the few exceptions admitted by the guidelines).

This issue has now been discussed or debated by my count in at least four different places and it's time for me to move on and drop the proverbial stick. I support the motion to close this thread and invite any uninvolved admin to do so and if so inclined make any judgements. I will have no further comment on this issue here or elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and Concerns about other editors censoring RS sources on Cosby talk pages

66.235.36.153 has been active on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations for quite some time. Recently they have been making particular contentious edits. Last month they were warned twice for adding that the accusations were made without evidence with no source.[73][74] A similar edit was made without a source today[75], though after being reverted they did finally provide a source.[76] Over the past few days they have been in an edit war over whether to list Cosby's status as a civil rights leader in the lede of the assault allegations article.[77][78][79] The last three warnings on his talk page are from making incendiary comments about other editors and general talk page misuse. After my procedural revert of his last addition to the article in question, he posted this rant on my talk page, saying that other editors have ganged up on him and, after referencing Hitler and George Orwell, said I was piling on as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• A short block for edit warring seems appropriate here, at the very least. Their edit warring has been slow, but it's edit warring nonetheless. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Page semi protected. That's all that's needed here for the time being.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Folks First, let us get something straight, when there has been a request to go to talk about a subject this good faith editor has done so. This was pointed out to LM2000 before they came here whining about being 'picked on', this good faith editor merely pointed out other editors at Cosby biography talk had deleted RS and deleted a reply to an editor who rambled on about the 'good' Hitler did and Cosby was like 'Hitler'...you can confirm this at Cosby bio talk. Pointing this out to LM2000 is not a 'rant' it is a fact, easily confirmed.

When it was requested this editor provided the proper RS for the painfully obvious fact that Cosby is noted for aspects of his civil rights activity it was provided. That was what, is, being referred to as 'slow edit warring' of which there is no such thing. This editor requested numerous times that the Cosby allegations article have some kind of protection as every time there was some juicy gossip in GAWKER or even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER some editors would rush in drooling to get it into the article...so it is rather hilarious to request article 'protection' when entering a fact of a Living Person is placed in the article with a proper RS, an RS cited in the biography of that person. There is the expressed concern in the Cosby allegation article that the Cosby legacy is being suppressed by means of the allegations, part of that legacy is notable civil right activity, activity some editors have deleted multiple times even in the talk section. With deep concern...Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm afraid page protection may not be enough in this case. 66.235 denies slow edit warring exists and continues incendiary comments by saying that I was "whining" by coming here, a claim they doubled down on in their edit summary.[80] 66.235 has discussed the civil rights issues on the main Cosby article but not the allegations article, that's a separate dispute and is no justification for edit warring. 66.235 has done good work on both articles and brings a different perspective but has recently ignored policy and their talk page behavior has elevated tensions.LM2000 (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello LM2000 Thank you for acknowledging this fellow good faith editor has done 'good work'...when the edit about the Cosby civil right legacy is restored with the proper RS that 'good work' will continue. What has 'mounted tensions' is pointing out that editors who compare Cosby to 'Hitler' and drone on about the 'good Hitler did' were deleting posted RS from the Cosby talk page to be perused by other good faith editors such as yourself. They would then rush over and threaten this editor with being 'blocked' if the editor then reposted the various RS at Cosby talk to be reviewed for the article....soooo get your story straight before joining editors who ramble on about the 'good' Hitler did and threaten fellow good faith editors with being blocked...this an archived site so all can be confirmed at the Cosby talk pages. Yes this editor considers it 'whining' when another editor does not return a conversation at the proper talk page and runs to get a fellow good faith editor disciplined for doing what editors are suppose to do...provide edits that improve the article with proper RS. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • • Hello LM2000 This is a sort of PS to you of the above...the only 'perspective' this editor has is to stick to wiki standards of neutrality. Pointing out that editors who compare Living Persons to 'Hitler', delete RS from the talk pages and threaten editors with being blocked is a very, very, very proper subject to comment on ...at the proper talk page. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor
      • Hello Folks Just to make things clear to any who may read this an editor who added, at the request of another editor, a proper RS about Cosby's civil rights activity is labeled 'slow edit warring'. The article is then put 'under semi-protection'. Keeping any IP editors from improving the Cosby allegations article, even temporarily. Yet editors who deleted RS from Cosby talk, deleted responses in Cosby talk and editors who edit from a bias that here is a 'mountain of evidence' that Cosby's civil rights activity should be censored from any wiki articles, Cosby should be treated like 'Hitler' and Hitler did some 'good'. Those 'Hitler' editors are suppose to be able to run the content of articles about a Living Person while IP editors are shut out. With deep concern 66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

At the very least someone needs to instruct 66.235.36.153 to tone down the rhetoric here, on article and user talk pages, and anywhere on Wikipedia. Accusing editors in a content dispute of censorship and describing editors as "whining" and "drooling" interferes with reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundayclose What is better than your demands for teatime talk at wikipedia would be to confront editors who state that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and that Cosby civil rights legacy should be censored. Your time would be better spent demanding to know why RS sources were being deleted. Yes there were editors who were high fiving at every piece of gossip from TMZ, GAWKER and even the NATIONAL ENQUIRER that got into the article ...and yes they were drooling to get it in. Simply put better enforcement of wiki neutrality, instead of threatening to block fellow good faith editors...as you have done. With deep concern Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)A Contributor

I'm not talking about other editors or the content of any article. I'm talking about your inflammatory comments that you are even continuing in the post immediately above. The fact that you can't seem to restrain yourself in making such comments even after asked to stop is very revealing about your attitude about collaborative editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello Sundyclose What is really revealing is your sticking your head in the sand that an editor who likened Cosby to Hitler was seemingly given cover by another editor by deleting RS and talk of accountability for a bias in violation of wiki neutrality, all on a proper talk page...you seem to have joined the Cosby is Hitler crowd with your continued badgering this good faith editor with threats of being blocked and a schoolmarm scold. You have been asked before not to clutter up talk pages in this manner but you ignore that. Stop equating a lively literary reference or two as a snub...or being so thin skinned. With deep concern. Scincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

Discussing with you is a pointless effort. You can't restrain yourself from false accusations that are very, very close to personal attacks. I never once compared anyone to Hitler. If you think I did provide the diffs. So my comments here are finished. Your comments speak for themselves to any admin or anyone reading them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Hello Sundayclose You are correct that discussing things with you is pointless, anyone can look at the Cosby talk page or this good faith editor's talk page and find out you did not discuss anything. All there is on those talk pages is your doing your schoolmarm scold of a fellow good faith editor and threatening to block a fellow editor. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that you showed up at the same time as the editor who deleted comments asking accountability for the Cosby is Hitler or the same editor who then deleted the RS provided to add the Cosby civil rights material to improve the article...deletion equals censorship. But there you are saying there was no censorship, even when it is obvious. You then make absolutely no contributions to improve the article just the same scolding tone you are using here. This entire exercise in accusations of 'slow edit warring smells' of trying to scold a good faith editor . Meanwhile the Cosby is Hitler editor has a freehand in the article in violation of wiki neutral policy. With deep concern. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) A Contibutor
• Strongly support block of at least one year. IP's behavior is inexcusable at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • • Hello Electricburst This good faith editors sees you are up to your old trick again. To any who may read this the editor called Electricburst has tried to censor through deleting the comment about their behavior concerning censoring RS at Cosby talk pages and deleting responses to an editor who stated Cosby should be treated like Hitler. This can be confirmed by checking this talk page's History. Here is what Electicburst deleted about their behavior of censorship through deleting... "Hello Electricburst Of course you support a ban of any kind...you are the editor who was deleting the proper RS at the Cosby talk page as anyone can confirm...you are also the editor who deleted the replies to the 'Cosby is Hitler editor' then rushed over and threatened this good faith editor with being blocked...with no good reason...again it can be confirmed with a simple check a this editors talk page. You seem to be the perfect wingman for the 'Hitler did good' 'Cosby is like Hitler' editor, one assumes you support those positions. In the meantime this editor is hoping to make some improvements in the article as has always been this good faith editor's intentions. With deep concerns. Sincerely A Contributor" With deep concerns. Sincerely66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

ArbCom Enforcement Needed

User:79.180.125.113 made edits [81] to Qasr el Yahud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which may be construed to be in violation of WP:ARBPIA3 with regards to the "reasonably related" clause, given the anonymous editor's edit description reading: "As of today, 4 September 2016, there is no state of Palestine. This area is within the state of Israel." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ineluctably. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If one construes it that broadly, then ECP should be slapped onto the article. I'm undecided whether it falls within ARBPIA3 though. Others may have differing opinions. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ECP should not be added. The article itself is not ARBPIA, but any edits that are ARBPIA related are subject to ARBCOM sanctions. But we don't need to protect the whole article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

AFDs on a number of olympians and other notable articles

Wasabi,the,one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems, after having been blocked for disruption, come back with a clear intent of getting as many articles of clear notability deleted on flimsy grounds ("not notable other than playing in the olympics".

Examples include

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Hargreaves
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beal-Gaillard House
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expulsion (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellerbeck Peak
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jor (music)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Chi-hsin

Seems to be a WP:POINT issue in reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Healy. Obviously a block has had no positive inpact. Also approaching the editor has shown no improvement. I would suggest a topic ban on AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My gut feeling with this user is they're a sock of someone else, based on apparently being a "new" account, that went to going to AfDs pretty quickly after being created. Most of those AfD rationales are incredibly poor (look at Beal-Gaillard House, for example) and I'd support a topic ban in that area. And on top of that, they create articles like this! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick tune up on Dyken Pond. It's still a stub, but it now has an RS source and I think it passes GEOLAND. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• I gave what should be seen as a last warning on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And I can't argue against your gut feeling in this case, Lugnuts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• The general disruption, the activity at AfD, the creation of articles like the one linked to (Dyken Pond) and the rest of the edits they've made (I took a quick look at their contributions) all match what Evlekis has been doing for quite a while now, making me believe it's yet another of his socks. And if it is there's most probably one or more other socks here too, because he usually has two or more socks active at the same time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• These accusations of sockpuppetry were made in good faith, but I just don't see it. Like Agathoclea said, I believe this is nothing more than a new editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT after the result of the Matthew Healy AFD. Sro23 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They are doing it again. I'd suggest a topic ban from AfD. Trying to get perfectly notable articles deleted is just a waste of time for everybody involved. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Unless there is a case of mistaken identity I think you came across one of the not-yet-closed AfDs. I see no new AFDs after the "last warning". Agathoclea (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Violating WP:AGF,WP:TPO, general incivility

USER:Erpert filed a request for closure stating "This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors." USER:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edited Erpit's comment, calling Erpit's comment an "obvious WP:CANVASSING violation. I am a completely uninvolved editor, I have read through AfD in question, and it appears to me a closure with a result of "no consensus" would be entirely appropriate in this situation, and/so I see no evidence of canvassing in Erpert's closure request comment. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's editing of Erpit's comments is a violation of WP:TPO, and his accusation of canvassing fails to assume good faith. I reverted Wolfowitz's initial edit with an admonishing to AGF, [82] he reverted me, so I posted a warning on his talk page for both the AGF and TPO violations, and restored Erpit's original text. Wolfowitz posted a comment on my page where he told me not to post warnings on others' pages where I don't understand the policies and accused me of incompetence. This indicates to me Wolfowitz has no intention of ceasing to edit other users' comments inappropriately, or of returing to assuming good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Additional Comment - looking through the ANI archives, it seems that there is bad blood between HW and Erpert going back at least a couple years, and Erpert has requested an IBAN at least twice, but no action has been taken. If these two can't interact collegially, perhaps an IBAN should be revisited, but in the meantime, editing the comments of someone you already have a negative history with is not really a very wise move and weakens the assumption that your motivations were unbiased and without malice. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers1976 does not understand the guideline he cites. WP:TPO expressly refers to talk pages, not to noticeboard pages. Erpert, an involved editor, used a request for closure to lobby for their preferred outcome in a deletion discussion. I redacted the lobbying. Requests for closure are made on noticeboard pages, not talk pages. The page at issue. WP:AN, is a noticeboard, not a talk page. WP:NOTICEBOARDS, the governing page, does not prohibit the removal of disruptive material. It is common practice to cap and hat disruptive posts to noticeboards, and my action was less drastic. I've removed/redacted inappropriate material from noticeboard posts before, uncontroversially. It should be evident that using a request for closure to canvass/lobby for one's preferred outcome in a contested deletion discussion is contrary to practice and a disruptive form of forum shopping; none of the other pending requests do such a thing, and I've never seen it done before. (It may well have been done, but it's far removed from acceptable practice.) My actual post to Mmyers's talk page said that quoting a guideline regarding talk pages "as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence". That is, frankly, quite accurate if blunt, and for an editor who has been active since 2007 not to recognized the difference is extraordinary. And it's certainly no worse than Mmyers's casual, and groundless, accusation that I ignored WP:AGF. (Mmyers' comment that disputing his interpretation of a guideline on his talk page indicates a lack of good faith is illogical at best and a rather clear example of the failure to AGF on his part. I'd also note that Mmyers edited my post to his talk page to remove all of my discussion of applicable guidelines, then posted a reply implying that I wasn't familiar with those pages. Editors have a great deal of leeway in maintaining their own talk pages, but selectively editing another editor's post in order to gain an advantage in an argument is clearly not acceptable behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

TPO DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the top of the Talk Page Guidelines, which states "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply," and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." As for your continued accusation of canvassing against Erpert, I leave it to the volunteers and administrators here to determine if there is any merit to it, but WP:CANVASSING DOES NOT allow you to respond to suspected canvassing by deleting it, it states "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." The Talk Page guidelines allow for removal of others' personal attacks, copyright violations, libel, posting of personal details - ie, comments with legal ramifications. Canvassing is not such a legal concern, and as the Talk Page guidelines say: "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived". And to clarify, I accused Wolfowitz of failure to assume good faith when he accused Erpert of canvassing, I did not accuse him of failing to assume I was acting in good faith. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it has been common practice to cap and hat or redact inappropriate content on noticeboards. Even if TPO applies to noticeboards, it is a guideline allowing reasonable exceptions. The fact that a particular form of insppropriate behaviour is not included in a list of examples does not make it appropriate, and WP:TPO allows the removal of various forms of "prohibited" and "harmful" material. Attempts to use requests for closure, which should be neutrally phrased, as forum shopping to open a forking discussion of the merits of a proposal, if tolerated generally, would be disruptive and timewasting, which certainly strikes me as harmful, as it will many if not most reasonable editors. WP:TPO also allows editors to "hide" off-topic material -- and the merits of a particular proposal are certainly off-topic in a request for closure, which should deal only with whether a discussion is ready to be closed. It also strikes me that redacting disruptive material which is also a clear violation of standard practice is preferable to escalating to a noticeboard discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the problem with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edits here; I can see why Erpert's request would be viewed as canvassing for a closure in line with his favoured outcome, and redacting certain posts has long been allowed in cases like this. Number 57 21:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't canvassing at all; and I requested that an uninvolved admin do the honors, not "do the honors and close as no consensus". Said admin can close the discussion however s/he sees fit. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• How do you explain inserting "[redact obvious [[WP:CANVASSING]] violation]" inside Erpert's text without leaving any attribution?  Is this neutral wording?  There is accusatory language in both the "CANVASSING" and "violation", and an intensifier by the use of the word "obvious".  Is it not a concern to you if someone edits your text without attribution?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I looked at WP:CANVASSING, but I don't see your meaning in there.  Canvassing seems to involve getting editors to show up at discussions unfairly, not suggesting an outcome to closers in advance of their closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:TPO states, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another example of an accusation of canvassing, from today HW has made another accusation of canvassing since the first incident, this time at [83].  I replied at [84], but haven't received any explanation.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another editor, User:MichaelQSchmidt, has weighed in with this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the word "another" in the words, "...another display of improper WP:CANVASSING.", there is no antecedent.  WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? lists "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."  The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying identifies such accusations as a "serious personal attack."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• I agree completely with the OP: WP:AGF, WP:TPO, general incivility.  I'm adding WP:No personal attacks, WP:TPO edit warring, and false attribution.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it common practice to use the AN/Request for Closure for an AfD ?

Off-topic discussion about a different editor and a different incident. Should be reported in a separate report

I am also weighing in here with a diff. Unscintillating's action in this AfD appear to be canvassing from my perspective - and that's seven years on Wikipedia. It can be seen that they are pinging all "keep" Ivoters from the previous AfD pertaining to Nicole Aniston [85], [86]. In my opinion, this is inappropriate and seems extravagant for an AfD. Currently, this is the second AfD nomination for Nicole Aniston. Also, although Unscintillating points out that User:MichaelQSchmidth appears to have opined, Schmidth is an involved editor [87] who showed up after Unscintillating's pinging of "keep" Ivoters had occurred.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Preceding para fails to mention that there was only one Delete in the previous AfD, and that person had already !voted in the current AfD; therefore they were aware of it and did not need to be notified. Thus the user notified everyone who !voted in the previous AfD who wasn't already aware, and it's not his or her fault the previous AfD was a unanimous-minus-1 Keep. After reviewing WP:APPNOTE I disagree with the assessment of canvassing (although that's only 3 years on Wikipedia). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC) That's patently inaccurate. Unscintillating didn't ping the nominator of the prior AFD, only the keep !voters. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Point taken. Read bad faith in that if you wish. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Steve: There are no rules against bringing a closure of AfD request to ANRFC. I did it the first time because the AfD ran over seven days (after which it was relisted by a neutral admin); and then I did it the second time because it ran over fourteen days. If discussions like that stay open that long, it can really mess up the backlog. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) The paragraph also doesn't mention that he is the OP for this sequence, and is on record for objecting to giving the targets of his comments a chance to respond, diff, and this diff.  The later diff comes after he was notified of the Wikilink WP:APPNOTE.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Those comments say nothing of the kind. Vague aspersions against editors you disagree with do nothing to further reasonable discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:APPNOTE also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior."  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Talk about jumping to conclusions at best. There is no way that I on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond. This is idiotic! Unscillintating is making assumptions about motives that I don't have, as a rationale for canvassing. Unsintillating is exceeding the editing parameters conferred to Users by Wikipedia. In other words, this person appears to be acting in a manner that he or she knows other's nonexistent hidden motivations, that he or she has special authority to ping others to come to an AfD, and that he or she has special authority to exceed policies and guidelines by doing this. My view is - this is, at best, irrational behavior. This is also evinced by seeming battleground editing behavior before they summoned others to this AfD; to wit: First, Unscintillating asserts "Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary" [88] (This is not a problem - it is simply an assertion). Second, User:K.e.coffman replies "I don't believe that AfD discussions 'confirm notability'. Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change" [89]. (This is simply a reply - no problem). Next, Unscintillating says, "So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD?" [90]. (This was already answered by coffman and I see no merit to asking this question}. Then coffman rationally replies [91] as follows: "Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example: Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search) Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion" Keep "Trolling by the nominator" Keep "per X & Y" Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc. Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions". Next Unscillating repeats themselves - "So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability?" (to me this seemed pointlessly argumentative and seeming to engage in a battleground editing style). After this I stepped in by agreeing with coffman - "The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions." [92] This was followed by Unscintillating calling in other keep Ivote editors [93]. (This might or might not be another salvo commensurate with battleground type behavior). Steve Quinn (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Also, Unscintillating stating that I was "on record for objecting to giving the targets of my comments a chance to respond" is inaccurate. There were no targets of comments. I was addressing the comments, not the editors. This is not appropriate to misconstrue my editing or my behavior. Again, Unscintillating is attributing to me motivation or underlying perceptions that were not present. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Words have meanings, and you have above used the word "patently" to describe your ability to determine who I pinged and who I didn't ping.  For the record, there were three editors I didn't ping: a keep !vote, you, and the nominator.  Subsequent to your report here, I have pinged the nominator.  Also for the record, the nominator has not edited at Wikipedia since May 2015, log.  The definition provided by Google on a search for [Patently] gives "clearly; without doubt".  If it was so "clear and without doubt" to you that I had not pinged the nominator, and that was the only ping that was needed, why did you not make the ping?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Well, Unscintillating, it's pretty clear you're not disputing the accuracy of my word use, only making an odd complaint that Bad Old Wolfowitz didn't correct the screwup you hadn't brought yourself to admit. And while you now point out that the nom hadn't edited recently, that can't be the reason you didn't ping them, because you pinged Scalhotrod, a long and notoriously permabanned by the WMF sexual harasser, as well as VandVictory, a banned sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

85.74.31.101

Saying rude stuff about admins. Also made violence threat on my talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomPerson81 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Who, what when and where? We need some 411 please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No contributions from 85.75.31.10 (talk · contribs) but recent activity from 85.74.31.101 (talk · contribs) including on your talk page.-- Dane2007 ^talk 04:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I show that this IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Widr, so I think this can be considered handled. I do see they are editing their talk page to make further commentary, might be worthwhile to revoke talk page access as well. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This in particular is not acceptable and if there is even a hint of that kind of editing in the future I would support a very long term enforced vacation from the project for this IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I added RandomPerson81's talk page to my Watchlist so I can look out for it since i'm pretty active on here. If the IP Vandal returns under a new IP address, might need some semi-protection for those pages until the activity subsides. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also somewhat confused by this. It's past my bed time... sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a typo I think, I got a similar post. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

After following up with comments like this, I'm not sure 31 hours is enough. I know that IPs can't be indeffed, but can an IP user have his/her talk page access revoked? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should block his /1 for being rude to admins. We're not putting up with that, except on days with a Y in the name. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well so much for their magical IP change...they just restored their talk page. I think a longer block and a talk page revocation are in order. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Missed me boys? Anyways... I hold no gruge against you anymore. Although you are extremely biased and 75% of the wikipedia community has pointed that out many times yet you do nothing, but that's not the point... My feelings about you were expressed days ago on 85.74.31.101... Sorry Dane2007 ^talk that it took a bit for my magic IP change, I hope I did not let you down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.82.89 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time for a range block? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

SPAs removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group article

• Hilda ayuanita (talk · contribs)
• SinarmasID (talk · contribs)

The above red-linked SPAs have been removing content and references from Sinar Mas Group, which has been twice restored, the second time by me 30 minutes ago. Here is the revision history for the article [94] because it would be cumbersome add 8 or more diffs here. Probably need semi-protect for this article and if someone is so inclined - check for socks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting turn of events. SinarmasID has just created a content fork of Sinar Mas Group on his/her user page. [95], [96]. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Note: SinarmasID was blocked indefinitely by Seraphimblade for "Promotional username, promotional edits" --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• The user has since been renamed to Ellizam (talk · contribs), incase anyone is confused that links to SinarmasID lead nowhere now. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat/legitimate copyright concern?

Can I get a second opinion on whether this constitutes a legal threat or a valid copyright concern? My instinct is that the complaint is baseless, since the images in question seem to be clearly long out-of-copyright, but it's safe to say that Dutch copyright law is not my forte so I'm a little reluctant to start dishing out blocks and warnings (in either direction) without a second opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Netherlands copyright term is author's life plus 70 years or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown. Based on that, all the pictures look to be in the public domain (though asking at commons:COM:VPC couldn't hurt). This looks more like a dispute over the terms of use of the website. I don't know if the website owner can legally restrict the use of public domain images just because those images were taken from their website. They would have to show that they own the copyright of the images. clpo13_(talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the deep-linking argument has been made previously and been rejected every time it came to court (that I am aware of) so it can be safely ignored - content owners keep trying however. Deep linking has some details. RE legal threat over copyright - Depending on jurisdiction, people who feel their copyright has been infringed are first required to notify the (alleged) infringer before legal action can be taken (in order to give a chance for the material to be removed). Its not a notification they will/are taking legal action, its saying 'you are infringing my copyright, please stop, if this is not stopped, legal action may be forthcoming'. Which is a reasonable request (if someone feels their copyright has been violated) While an argument could be made it falls under the chilling discussion, there are very few ways to notify wikipedia/editors they are potentially breaking copyright law without some reference to legalities. On the face of it, the allegations should be investigated. If some of the images are out of copyright, but only available through a private collection, as far as I am aware it would still violate WP's policies on image use? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last question, that would certainly be a question for Commons, where the images are hosted. There's also the matter of the difference between date of creation and date of publication. If the author is unknown and it can't be shown that an image was ever published, then it might not be public domain. clpo13_(talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I was literally just about to post the same thing - if the photos etc are in a private collection which has not been 'published' per the definition, the reading of the Netherlands law would mean its not public domain. WP:Public_domain#Publication states "In short: A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large." Hosted in a private collection for use by researchers etc only is certainly not 'public at large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that (talk). It also means that the article User:Fentener van Vlissingen refers to is not applicable here! (Michel Doortmont 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

What about the fact that the picture has changed? It's now a digital image and it might be under new copyright, similar to how old movies on DVD are copyrighted from time of DVD not time of production. If I scan in an old picture and preserve it, what is the copyright status? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what has been done to the picture (see commons:COM:SCAN). If it's a faithful reproduction, then it retains the original copyright status. If there have been enough enhancements to suggest a significant level of creative input, then that might warrant a separate copyright on the enhancements or even as an entirely new work (if, for example, an originally black and white photograph is hand-colored). clpo13_(talk) 16:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Much of this sounds like the same situation from National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, with the only question and unclear nature being if the original images are in the PD due to age or not. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well the key difference there is of course, the art is available to the public through the NPG regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding of WP:NLT, even if someone is right about a copyright violation occurring, and even if they are required by some authority outside of Wikipedia to state that they will take legal action if the copyright vio is not removed, they still must be blocked indefinitely until they remove the legal threat, because:

To prevent damage to the project, this policy removes editors who make legal threats on Wikipedia. The editor is not blocked just because "it's a legal threat", but because the block:

1. reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
2. reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
3. reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
4. prevents a situation in which someone is seeking to be a collaborative partner while setting themselves up as a legal adversary.

I'd also note that the person making the legal threat did not just threaten to take civil action, but also accused a Wikipedia editor of "theft under Dutch law". Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Can I just note the falsification of history in a claim made on the website, "European men and African women struck up lasting relationships, that were both an expression of personal cross-cultural intimacy and a means to build a common social, economic and even political structure"? Shouldn't this simply say "European men frequently stole and raped African women"? I know, not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Completely off topic, Drmies. As it calls my academic integrety in question, I do think a short response here is in order, perhaps to continue teh soapboxing elsewhere. Colonialism in any form indeed led to rape and other atrocities, I do not deny this. However, when you care to read the materials and maybe register for the website and read the stuff there, you will notice that not all relationships were of a violent nature. And that is what that project is about. (Michel Doortmont 19:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

• • Is that, like, reverse political correctness? clpo13_(talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't make me have to block you for soapboxing, Drmies, I've been itching to block an Arb for years. On a more serious note, I also dropped a note off explaining some and asking them to withdraw the threat. I prefer to coax them in the right direction rather than swing the ban hammer carelessly into the void. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree. Thanks Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm the user involved. I just want to say I acted in good faith. It was my understanding of copyright law that those images are in the public domain. It seems I may have been wrong, and if so I apologize. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• We need to hash it out at [Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] calmly. My gut says that if the images are in the public domain, you have violated the terms of use of the website (so he can ban you there) but there isn't a legal standing. That doesn't mean I'm right, just that it isn't cut and dry. That is why we settle it at CV, with legal@ only as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Moonriddengirl as this may require her expertise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This article (in Dutch) suggests that those unpublished works cannot be copyrighted under Dutch law since late 1995. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Article 39 of the Dutch copyright law also seems pretty clear: "Voor werken, waarvan de duur van het auteursrecht niet wordt berekend naar de bepalingen van artikel 37 en die niet binnen 70 jaren na hun totstandkoming op rechtmatige wijze zijn openbaar gemaakt, vervalt het auteursrecht." Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree that the original works are out of copyright. But I'm also getting the impression that Mr. Doortmont does not share our point of view regarding PD-art. Per Wikimedia policy (and US law), faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright 2-dimensional artwork cannot be copyrighted either. There may be constrasting views though. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good faith meaning not reading / complying with the regulations of the website and not registering before using the materials? I am sorry,but I find that hard to believe User:Fentener van Vlissingen. As for the images that come from the website direct, these were / are photographs from private collections that never have been nor are now in the public domain. They only ended up there, because they were illegally acquired from a closed website. The fact that they now seem to be in the public domain does not change that legal position. With regard to the previously published photographs, these were also not in the public domain at the time they were published, as they were part of a copyrighted publication of which the author was still alive (most likely at least) by 1942 or 1943. The materials have a retrieval date on them in Wikimedia Commons. So this is at least an issue for further debate at least. Legal "threat" removed from comment. The copyright law for the previously published photographs is that of Ghana or the UK (place of publication is obscure, but either one), and in both cases it is 70 years after the death of the author (i.e. 1942 or 1943 + 70, most likely). As these photographs were taken from the republished new edition of 2004, and not the original edition of circa 1928, there is another copyright question to be answered: does the re-publication in a compeletely different format revive the copyright or perhaps institute a new copyright? I believe it does. But my real beef is with the private photographs which were taken from the website repository without permission, and which are not in the public domain (Michel Doortmont 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).

Thank you for removing the threat. We don't concern ourselves with the policies of other websites, only the legal status of the images. As Jo-Jo pointed out, the images are actually hosted at Commons so you need to go to commons:COM:VPC to file the complaint. I can assure you it will be investigated in a reasonable time frame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I will do that. Currently my complaint about infringement of the right to use the texts from the website, as well as the way of linking to it, is with Wikipedia. I felt compelled to lodge the complaint, because in most articles the copyrighted materials are not easily removed. Although an editor of Wikipedia articles, I do not feel the urge to undo the work of another editor who infringed on my, or other peoples rights, in good faith or otherwise (Michel Doortmont 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).

Can you show us some examples of text that was taken from your website? So far we have only debated images here, but if original text from your website has been used in Wikipedia articles of course we need to check this too. Or do you just object to links being set from Wikipedia to your site? De728631 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may defend myself: I have not taken over texts literally from Doortmont's website. I have only incorporated the information given on his website (dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career) in my articles, which I have written in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has focused on whether the complainer's copyright claims are valid. But the original question was whether their edits constitute a legal threat. I would note that WP:NLP says "A polite complaint in cases of copyright infringement is not a legal threat" and goes on to explain the proper channels for pursuing such claims. And I don't think we can quibble about what appears to be a normally worded legal notice of infringement being somehow "impolite."--agr (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation of Willem George Frederik Derx

I have now also been accused of copyright violation for the text on Willem George Frederik Derx. I did not copy any of the text of Doormont's website, but merely cited his website as the source of the information of dates of birth/death, family relationships, administrative career, etc. The article has been written in my own words. I don't see how I violated his copyright. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Doortmont's website requires registration and login, checking the original content is not that easy. Creating a user account requires disclosing your real name, so I at least don't feel very compelled to become a new user just for this single issue. Maybe someone else with a real-world Wikipedia user name could have a look? De728631 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Doortmont acknowledges that I did not copy text from his website and that I wrote it down in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I to understand from the copyright notice pasted on that page, that it is alleged to be a copyvio of itself? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

Persistent copyright violation

New editor User:Rash014 has been repeatedly pasting large chunks of copyrighted text from medical journals to oral cancer ([97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]). I've posted at his/her talk page three times, politely asking for an end to it, but I've not had a reply so far. Little Will (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. For their first edit, the copyright notice on the WHO page "Extracts of the information in the web site may be reviewed, reproduced or translated for research or private study". Straight-up copying the entire text is not presenting an "extract", so I do believe that to be a violation. Their copying this page, which you reverted after their first batch of edits, is also a copyvio ("© 2016 The Oral Cancer Foundation. All rights reserved"). So I will nix all the versions from the history, and will the leave the rest for the next admin. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was an extract, the licence clearly isn't CC compatible anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent Disruptive Editing

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

---

After having multiple encounters with the user 86.4.217.101, I have finally decided to make his disruptive behaviour more widely known. Following repeated reversions of valid edits on 2016 French Open – Women's Singles and vandalism on my own user page, the user was warned and subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Following the block, the user continually blanked his talk page and any attempts of communication were met with blanking and vulgar content on the talk page. The user has came to my attention again following repeated reversions of edits on 2016 Western & Southern Open – Women's Singles. The user will not accept that the article is written in the way set out in the article guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Despite trying to make this point to the editor and notifying them of the standard article layout my attempts have gone ignored. Upon looking at their talk page, I see that they have been warned about non-constructive edits on the article Lauren Davis. Again the user replaced the content with "Suck My Dick :)". The user has also used threats such as "Bitch try me" and repeatedly uses expletives in edit summaries.

Examples

• Lauren Davis
• my talk page
• expletives in edit summary
• deletion on talk page

This user is causing a real headache for all the editors over at tennis articles. We have tried as much as possible to avoid edit warring, but it is pretty difficult when the other party refuses to engage in discussions on the article's talk page and any attempt to post on their own talk page just gets blanked. I would ask that some one would look at this behaviour, as it is clear that further action is needed following an unsuccessful previous ban. --F1lover22 talk 23:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. It's a dynamic IP, so I hesitate to place a longer block. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

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

Kristin Smart

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

---

Kristin Smart is in the news again. A large swath of sourced content was recently deleted by an editor affiliated with the university Smart attended and where her body is allegedly buried.[104]. Could someone review these unusual deletions? Thank you. Fancy nancy schmanzy (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Etiquette on Simultaneous Substitution page (talk)

I have previously edited a page, and long accepted changes made by others to correct some newbie mistakes. Two years ago I sympathized with another reader (on the talk page), about limitations Wikipedia rules impose on editing. I mused that perhaps Jimmy Wales might allow ignore all rules if asked; I did not make the request.

Just recently, an editor of apparent repute who disagrees with me on a political issue in television broadcasting in Canada, was somewhat uncivil over my daring to raise the subject of ignore all rules - two years ago! I have noticed this individual used the f-word in a dispute with someone else over editing of a page concerning a court case in Canada. Not particularly administrator appropriate behaviour.

Not sure how this is handled, but wanted to tell someone.70.71.6.57 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

After two edits to render the page Talk:Simultaneous substitution readable, it appears the OP here is miffed because Bearcat reverted some poor edits he made and told him why. Don't see anything that needs any action at all. The talk page on that article should probably be archived to hide all the SOAPBOX, but can't see any problem with Bearcat, whom was not notified of this. He's pinged. John from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Page movers can now delete pages as opposed to just titles

Did I miss a discussion? When was this implemented? I don't see anything at Wikipedia talk:Page mover. I presumed I'd be slammed with the notice that I couldn't move the page if it was blocked, and have to perform a round robin move as usual move if desired, not automatically delete the page. I happened to notice an entry in my deletion log which previously couldn't happen (Special:log/Godsy), or I wouldn't have even known. As a non-administrator, I can't view what previously resided there. So I unknowingly deleted something that I can't even restore or view. Would an administrator please history merge what I deleted with the Wikipedia:Navigation templates redirect. Pinging Andy M. Wang because I think it's a good bet they might have some relevant information. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do see Wikipedia talk:Page mover/Archive 2#Give page movers the ability to overwrite pages with a non-trivial page history through moves and Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle enhanced move options, small discussions that talk about similar things. Pinging Xaosflux in case they have any insight into this matter. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. You moved over a redirect whose only revision was pointing to the source of the move. It's just new that this gives an entry in the deletion log. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 148#Entries showing up in deletion log. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so this isn't specific to page movers as I assumed, and it was a regular move over redirect. Striking part of my comment above. Thanks PrimeHunter.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it there.[105] PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_deletions_in_deletion_log - the latest software release includes additional logging for this type of action now. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Frauke Petry

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

---

User:Tataral tries repeatedly and aggressively to push his version using contentious material to label the person as far-right in the lede, removing majority sources saying she is right-wing (see also Alternative for Germany). I reverted backed by WP:BLPREMOVE. Today, he didn't discuss his version anymore and started edit-warring again, though I reminded him to discuss. I was already insulted by him as "extreme-right" in the article history, see also article talk page. Please block the page/the user, at least until a consensus is found. Thank you very much in advance.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

BLPREMOVE does not provide you with an exemption for edit-warring in this instance. The BLP violation has to be egregious, and as far as I can tell, you and Tataral have a significant difference of opinion. Both of you are edit-warring, and both of you should be blocked. I strongly suggest that you not revert again, even if Tataral does (your version is now in place). Meanwhile, I'll let this thread play out a bit before deciding whether action is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gerry1214 criticized me for templating him for edit warring without contributing the ANI thread, so I'll say something. I agree with Bbb23 that BLPREMOVE is not a Get Out of Jail Free card you can use whenever you disagree with an editor on a BLP. The dispute seems to be over "is a far-right politician" in the lead vs "has been called a far-right politician" in the body. Since this is a German politician, I can understand how a newer editor might get carried away and think this is an egregious BLP violation. There's a certain connotation to "far right" that I imagine would be even stronger in Germany. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214 is a relatively new editor who is clearly here on a mission to portray far-right German politics in a more sympathetic light. While the description of her in the lead is an important issue, he is also reintroducing biased statements in the body of the article, for example "in her party Petry represents the national-conservative faction supporting policies of national self-determinism", in Wikipedia's voice, as if this is an uncontroversial fact instead of being her own opinion, and reintroducing a completely meaningless section heading hierarchy, e.g. with "Wolfgang Schäuble" as a first-level heading(!).

Describing a politician who is described as far-right by reliable sources as far-right has nothing to do with "BLP" – Petry is widely described as a far-right politician by experts in the field, including Cas Mudde (as cited in the article) and many others, and advocates, among other things, the shooting of refugees. In English far-right is a relatively neutral term and simply means "the most right wing". I'm not aware of anyone disputing the fact that AfD, and particularly Petry's faction within the party, is positioned significantly to the right of Germany's mainstream right-wing parties (CDU/CSU), and belongs to "the most right wing" part of German politics. --Tataral (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said anything about potential connotations because it probably misled you into thinking that this is a valid place to argue your case in the content dispute. It's not. I'm sorry about muddying the waters like that. I was trying to explain (and apparently failed) how two good-faith editors could end up talking past each other, make accusations of POV-pushing, and edit war: "far right" can mean different things to different people. If you two go back to the talk page and talk civilly to each other, maybe Bbb23 will get distracted by something else and forget about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not new, because I was active in dewiki since 2012, this is propaganda like that I'm here on a mission, since I created lots of articles of any political colour, see e.g Helmut Holter or Konstantin von Notz. Labelling Frauke Petry as far-right (German: "rechtsextrem"), is clearly wrong, see Alternative for Germany. I wrote more on the article talk page, why this is clearly wrong. I created a balanced version, which included the statement of Cas Mudde, that he said she is far-right, while Tataral removed BBC/Reuters sources that she is right-wing, which are clearly in majority. So my intent is to put both positions in the article, Tataral wants to label her with his pov. This is wrong and clearly justifies revert on behalf of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Gerry1214 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring at the article, Gerry1214, and let discussion proceed. You have reverted multiple users now, including an IP user 74.70.146.1, as well as Tataral. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I have reverted you, partly because I think Tataral's version is better, but also partly because the edit warring you have engaged in is objectionable in itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You have not a single valid argument, why it is better to suppress BBC/Reuters sources. I don't know why want to label Petry as far-right, probably some don't like her. I don't support her, but I will defend the balanced version, not the labelling version.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at this stage it doesn't matter what arguments I do or do not have as regards the content of that article. The point we are here to discuss is that your behavior, which includes the reverting of multiple users who disagree with you (one of them being me) is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know on what a stage you're on, but factual arguments and sources should be the only thing that matters here, as in my version and not in yours. My behaviour is appropriate, because some clearly try to suppress information and label a person.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to edit war against multiple users (myself, Tataral, and 74.70.146.1), as the article's revision history shows you have done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Gerry1214 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Celestinesucess patrolling problems

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

---

Celestinesucess has huge problems with page patrolling. She patrols many non-notable articles. Many users have left messages on her talk page before me that they have found problems with her page patrol, User talk:Celestinesucess. Someone should ask her to stop patrolling pages improperly. She can tag them, or nominate them but should reduce the speed of patrolling. She doesn't check the notability if the article claims to be notable but is actually non-notable. I don't know how many non-notable pages she has patrolled which helped those articles to survive deletion process. . --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only have you not provided specific examples, but I can't seem to find the discussion you had with her about these issues before you brought this to ANI. As for the multitude of editors leaving her messages about this, I only see three non-automated notes about her patrolling: the first tersely explains that the patrol should have been BLPPRODded (April); another simply states that the unreviewing editor would like others to have a look (MrX, July); a third expresses dismay, points out that the subject has few likes on Facebook, and describes all the sources as being PRIMARY (Marvellous Spider-Man, September). None of the messages properly explain what she was doing wrong, give her guidance about NPP (a start would be pointing out the NPP information page and the NPP checklist), ask her to slow down, or seek to open a dialogue with her. An ANI complaint seems like overkill. Rebbing 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are other messages also which are single lines. She has opened account before me. How I will give her explanation. I will take this discussion to WP:NPP if ANI is not right place. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man: I saw the other messages: those are automatically delivered by the page curation tool; they can be sent by mistake when a patroller tries to mark off a page that has already been patrolled. As for addressing this, I suggest you start by politely raising your concerns with her on her talk page. Provide her with guidance and some recent examples of what you consider to be incorrect patrols. You should only ask for outside help if a one-on-one conversation has failed to resolve the issue. Also, the NPP noticeboard is WP:NPP/N. Good luck. Rebbing 00:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Favre1fan93 3RR Violation

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

---

WP:3RR. Good faith edits to Batman: Arkham Origins. 1 2 3. 2603:300A:1510:A900:64F0:2C39:EF11:3CE6 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. I also notice you didn't bother to discuss the edits - you just reverted the first revert. This is a typical content dispute - take it to the talk page if you want to press the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

USER:Handthrown Failure to Assume Good Faith, Incivility, Personal Attacks

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

---

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

---

Handthrown had previously made unprovoked sarcastic comments about me [106], which she had been warned about by both me [107] and DionysosProteus [108]. Even after these warnings, she accused me of committing "fraud" in relation to my use of a source not once, but twice:

• "The source speaks conditionally when he says unseen characters “can be” etc, the article pretends that the source was offering a general definition. That’s is a little fraud. "[109]
• "So Mmeyers coins a phrase, adds a merely decorative footnote that appears to put the vile phrase in the source’s mouth, and there we’ve got a nice “Wikipedia”-sounding definition. Fraud, I say!"[110]

The second, and more direct and emphatic accusation of fraud against me occurred after both DionysosProteus and I had told her there was no fraud and I had not misrepresented the source in any way. Accusing me of "fraud", goes beyond simple failure to assume good faith and is a serious personal attack bordering on libel. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the "fraud" Handthrown accused me of is using this reliably sourced quote:

"Those we do not glimpse on stage are still there, because they motivate the actors to take a certain course of action and advance the plot, but their physical presence is unnecessary. In fact, their absence may make them appear more powerful to us simply because we only know them by inference."

To write this sentence:

[An unseen character is one who] “advances the action of the plot in a significant way, and whose absence enhances their effect on the plot.”

Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your feelings must really be hurt. Good thing there's ANI to handle that. EEng 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought AN/I was a "safe space". I have bystander distress syndrome just from reading this. Egregious, bordering on libel. Yes! Doc talk 08:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comments were removed by Mmyers1976 as "personal attacks". I've reinstated them since (well deserved) mockery isn't a personal attack and redacting other peoples comment is not done. Kleuske (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It may just be me, but this looks like a content dispute with a side dish of butthurt. The "fraud" clearly references the statements made in the lede of the article, not the editor. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Fraud" may not have been the best choice of words, but I don't see how anyone could interpret it as a personal accusation, given its context. Rebbing 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only do I not see a problem here, but your characterization of this comment from DionysosProteus as a warning is inaccurate; some might even call it fraudulent. Rebbing 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, EEng has been blocked numerous times for personal attacks, Doc whines at every admin who warns him for personal attacks or gives him a month's topic ban, and Kleuske inappropriately closed an ANI here this June, so his fingerwagging at me for simply removing some unconstructive personal attacks is the height of hypocrisy. And if he and Rebbing can't see how "So Mmeyers coins a phrase, adds a merely decorative footnote that appears to put the vile phrase in the source’s mouth, and there we’ve got a nice “Wikipedia”-sounding definition. Fraud, I say!" is directed at me rather than just the article, I question their reading comprehension skills. So I guess I'll take their comments with a 50# sack of salt. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you thought you'd embarrass me by bringing up my various blocks, you must have missed the box at the top of my userpage --

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).

-- not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and Review_of_EEng's_indefinite_block and Unblocked and so on.

• I suggest you review WP:WHINING.

EEng 14:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriately closing a thread is a lot less disruptive than deleting others' comments. Rebbing 12:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism." Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone's being a bit harsh here. One can see from the depth of debate and dispute resolution on the enormous Talk:Unseen character that this is a serious and contentious matter. It's understandable that tempers get a bit fraught when debating important matters such as whether a character in a sitcom can still be "unseen" even if we've seen them a bit. It's valuable work, and I, for one, am grateful that other dedicated people are doing it... -- Begoon 11:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: Ditto- I wouldn't even attempt it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The "harshness" is not in reference to their work on the article in question, but a reaction to a WP:ANI filing on very flimsy grounds. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I shall write out 100 times: "Sarcasm does not work on the internet". Thanks for the reminder. Mea culpa. (adopts serious expression) -- Begoon 12:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: I got it :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Good, but don't shout about it or everyone will want it... -- Begoon 12:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think any of the above editors took a look at the significant and wall-o-text discussions that were taking place on the talk page. Mockery is unhelpful, it's an attempt to assert superiority without conveying anything useful, to me it has always asserted the opposite; a lack of anything worth saying. I read something quite intelligent recently, which I think may be on EEng's userpage, about ignorance being infinite but patience not. Some of the above posts, I think, are quite indicative of that (patience being exhaustable I mean). So, instead of outright mockery, since my patience is not yet exhausted, I'll try to dispel some ignorance here. Mmyers1976, this noticeboard is specifically for actionable and problematic incidents that need administrator attention. A spat between a few editors on a talk page is not something that is in dire need of attention (not in this case). What would be best here is for all three of the editors on that talk to cool it a little bit and refrain from making claims without backing it up with sources/diffs. We put citation needed stickers in articles for unsourced contentious claims, we do it mentally on talk and wikipedia pages as well. The only difference being that on article pages we request sources and on talk and wikipedia pages we request diffs. Looking at your diffs, the claim of fraud actually gains traction. You've intentionally omitted context with the intention of punishing another editor. That's WP:PUNITIVE (yes it refers to admin actions, but, is here for illustrative purposes). This is a content dispute issue that didn't need to be escalated, try talking more calmly. Also, unlike me, try being more concise. The more words you employ the more chances that something will be misunderstood. Other than that, this one is ready for a close. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the above comments, but accusing someone of fraud is still a failure to assume good faith as well as a personal attack. Are we just not enforcing those guidelines anymore? Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We are, of course, however, the accusations of fraud appear to have been made not to target a person, but, rather a misinterpretation of the source. I'll take the first example; "The source speaks conditionally when he says unseen characters “can be” etc, the article pretends that the source was offering a general definition. That’s is a little fraud." and I'll rephrase it to what I am construing it to mean; What the article is currently presenting is a general observation that has not been made by the source. The source itself makes the claim conditionally. To make a general observation off a conditional claim would appear fraudulent. To me it is not commenting on the writer as having intentionally made a fraudulent claim, that would indeed be a WP:AGF violation, but, rather that what is in the article and what is in the cited source are different claims. The second example is more borderline, but, reading the whole thing it highlights an interesting point. I took a second comparison of the statements presented above and all I have to say is this; You've taken this their absence may make them appear to imply this [An unseen character is one who] .... Does it not follow that if something may then it must by convention also be possible that it may not. As such it would more accurately represent the source if it said something along the lines of "An unseen character is one who may". I think the second comment was more exasperation than any intent to make an accusation of fraud. I think the way it was said also highlights this; Fraud I say! vs. something more direct such as; "you're a fraud". The former is more intended towards making a point, the latter is an untenable accusation. At least, that's how I'm reading it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the first accusation by itself could be construed as not personally aimed at me, which is why I didn't make an issue out of it other than to suggest to Handthrown that she could take it to WP:NORN for review. But then after she was told it was not fraud by DP and myself, she pointedly accused me of "coin(ing) a phrase", adding a "merely decorative footnote" (ie, accusing me of forging a source) putting that "vile phrase in the source's mouth", and asserted that all the things she had just accused me of were fraud. I don't think we need to get back into the content issue again here, it developed to my satisfaction on the content page, but whether you might have a different opinion on what the source is saying or not, I don't think her second accusation is borderline at all, or just an expression of exasperation, it's a pretty clear accusation of very specific things she accused me of doing that she then said constitute fraud. And it takes the benefit of the doubt away from her first accusation. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try breakdown parts of your statement. the first accusation by itself could be construed as not personally aimed at me, I think it cannot be construed as aimed, especially when consider the phrasing. she pointedly accused me of "coin(ing) a phrase", this has to be the fist time I've seen that used in a negative sense, but, I can tell that it's not a compliment and I'm merely making an observation here. adding a "merely decorative footnote" ... putting that "vile phrase in the source's mouth", and asserted ... were fraud. Yes and no, you're inferring that Handthrown is accusing you of fraud based on the terse terms they were using and not in fact the meaning of their words, I'd pin it to WP:CIVIL but not WP:AGF. I am inclined to chalk it up to the use of hyperbole. I don't think her second accusation is borderline at all, or just an expression of exasperation, well, we can only agree to disagree on that since I'm not going to swing you to my viewpoint and I am yet to be swung around to yours. And it takes the benefit of the doubt away from her first accusation., I had no doubt in the meaning of Handthrown's first comment. Content issues are not for this page, I was merely making an observation, (apologies for using indispensable bytes to do so) it developed to my satisfaction on the content page, hmm... did it develop to your satisfaction because the resolution supported your position, or, because the resolution was developmentally beneficial regardless of the position it supported? food for thought, no need to respond to that question. I may also be under the influence of SC-R Trey Gowdy right now since I'm listening to him while writing this up. All in all, I can see why you have been upset by Handthrown's comments, they were terse at best. I'll take a leaf out of Doc's book and ask you a more serious question, what precise action are you requesting here? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Precise action: At this point I would be satisfied with a message from an uninvolved user warning her that her actions were uncivil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'll recuse myself from taking any such action (due to my involvement in the discussion) and allow either another user or the closer to take on any action they see fit. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: In addition to removing unfavorable comments in this thread (diff), the complaining editor has also reverted an attempted close (diff). Rebbing 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes; Mmyers1976 unfortunately does not apreciate a good turn when they see it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Myers sees fit to call another editor a "tool",[111] then has the audacity to complain about PA's. Pot meets kettle. Doc talk 14:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I quite like how you so casually inferred from tool that they were referring to your extensive block log. Very nice. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean, reverting personal attacks, and then politely reverting a non-administrative closure by a person with an expressed bias on an administrators noticeboard. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Expressed bias? where I don't see anything that constitutes involvement from FIM. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You and I both misread FIM's comments about "harshness" as being sincere, but I later realized "debating important matters such as whether a character in a sitcom can still be "unseen" even if we've seen them a bit. It's valuable work" was probably meant sarcastically, as derision of the content dispute, which is why he later said "I shall write out 100 times: "Sarcasm does not work on the internet"" FIM is welcome to correct me if I am wrong. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will! For pete's sake Mmyers1976, this is the second time you have attributed edits to me that I have never made; It was Kleuseke who mentioned harshness [112], following Begoon's mention [113], and Begoon who mentioned writing lines [114]. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may take a second to revive an old comment; I question their reading comprehension skills.. Haste lends itself to error, slow down Mmyers and read the comment's you quote carefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rndude, you are correct, a sloppy error on my part, it was Begoon's comments that contained the sarcasm, but as you can see, FIM "ditto'd" Begoon's comments and also said he "got" the sarcasm, so my concerns about his bias as a non-administrative closer stand. I would also state that the pile on of unhelpful and inflammatory "mockery" cluttering what is supposed to be a dispute resolution, not creation forum, is apt to make mistakes like mine more likely. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

FIM, I do apologize, you are correct, I did accidentally misattribute Begoon's comment to you, a sloppy error on my part. However, you did voice "ditto" with the sarcastic comment in question, and said you "got" the sarcasm as well, so I do think the question of your bias as a closer remains valid. I also think an error like mine becomes more likely when people clutter an ANI with unhelpful "mockery". Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers1976, I can guarantee you that Begoon is not being sarcastic with his comments. I've seen him on this noticeboard many times and he often extends good faith to editors who otherwise would have received none. He's one of the last people I'd comment on being disingenuous. Well I'll be damned it was sarcasm. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:NONAPOLOGY Mmyers1976! I'm not sure I did mean it like that; but still. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• We should have a Hurt and Upset Feelings Festival WP:HUFF noticeboard where people can talk about how mean someone's been to them. EEng 16:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting uninvolved admin to review The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The latest discussion can be found at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)#Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016. For those not familiar with the history, the prior ANI report can be seen here, and further details of the history can be found in my talk page archive here.

A new user FastNLoud (talk · contribs) has been continuing the disruption and personal attacks. I'm not sure if it's more of the same, or if it has rolled over into trolling at this point.

First, they submit an edit request asking to add a person as a producer (using IMDb as a source). However, a few months ago an IP that claimed to represent the producers had insisted that all mention of that person be removed from the talk page. When this was pointed out, the new user changed directions and demanded the name be removed from the talk page.

They then proceeded to accuse me of being a "former disinfranchasied disgruntled member" (I'm not) due to their belief that I am a "West Coast Californian" (I have never lived in California, I live in the Pacific Northwest), and asked if I am Werldwayd as well as user C.Fred (do I really need to say I'm not?)

In addition to links to relevant policies and guidelines, the user has been provided links to WP:RSN, WP:SPI, and WP:Files for upload to address their demands and accusations. Yesterday they asked that I upload the title card for the program. I tried to point out that I cannot upload a document that I do not posses. But to no avail, as they then demanded I upload the title card and undo edits by myself and others who have worked to cleanup the article to Wikipedia standards.

Their most recent post today was also colorfully laced with expletives. I'm requesting another admin to review and to take whatever action they see as appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud, why don't you just ignore them? EEng 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of replying to their most recent post. However, due to the long history of disruption at the article and related pages, I chose to report it here at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now 50.204.235.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun blanking talk page content at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), blanking content from World Tomorrow, and editing against previously established consensus at the disambig The World Tomorrow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Persistent and unfounded allegation of Sock puppetry

Gravuritas (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been persistently reinserting material at Causes of Brexit even though it was unsupported by any of the provided references. He has desisted from this for now so this is not the subject of this complaint. However, during the discussion on the talk page, another editor (IP 85.255.237.66) made a post broadly opposing the insertion of the unsupported material. In amongst Gravuritas's response was an allegation that this other editor and myself were sock puppets (presumably because we were agreeing the Gravuritas was wrong - even though he would not accept it). Diff:and also check the edit summary. Gravuritas was warned about unfounded allegations of this sort (diff). He almost immediately responded with another allegation (diff). Another warning (diff). And yet another allegation (diff).

Note to checkusers: I know that you do not publicly connect user accounts with an IP address. In this case I have no problem with a check user being performed because I know that a connection will not be made. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified user in question of thread. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: Well give us a chance! Our notifications appeared simultaneously. --Elektrik Fanne 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the notifications. The original disagreement revolved around section headed 'Lies and misleading information' in the WP article. Material which I felt was justified for inclusion with WP:RS effectively describing it as 'misleading' was deleted by EF because she/he felt that the RS had not described it as 'deliberately misleading'. She persisted multiple times with this straw man, and could not seem to grasp that changing the term under discussion by her own addition of 'deliberately' to the criterion for inclusion was clearly illegitimate. The degree of persistence in this error I found very surprising and unusual. When another editor joined in and repeatedly made the same error, it seemed stretching the bounds of likelihood that two such persistent enthusiasts for the same straw man could be different people. It certainly looked like a sock.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not discussing your continued attempts to insert material claiming that the remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading when the sources did not make that claim. Indeed they stated that the fundamental claim was correct but that there was difference in opinion over the size of the financial penalty. That is not evidence of intent to mislead and the other editor clearly agreed as did one other editor who contributed to the discussion. That editors agree that you are wrong when you are wrong is not evidence that they are the same person and WP:SPI is littered with such allegations. This discussion is over your repeated and unfounded allegations of sock puppetry, which you have repeated once again above - and nothing else. --Elektrik Fanne 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the thread topic, and I was trying to explain how a reasonable person might have cause to believe that you and the other editor were one and the same. Your first sentence in the para above once again repeats the falsehood based on your repeated error. I have not ever tried to insert material claiming that the Remain campaign's claim was deliberately misleading. Your inclusion of 'deliberately' in the sentence suggests that you have not understood a word of the multiple posts on this subject. Can you seriously, seriously, not understand that 'misleading' is not the same concept as 'deliberately misleading'? Because if so, then you and one you claim is not a sock are probably in a 0.1% minority.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that this user has persistently been impolite. He has pushed me to the point that I would post a message saying "Stop it! Right now! I'm not kidding!" on his userpage, what I would not normally do. Whenever I would edit Impact of the privatisation of British Rail, he would revert my edits without responding properly to the verbose justification I left on the talk page. That's not nice. He furthermore suggested (this is not a joke) I would ejaculate prematurely (see his talk page and edit history of the said article), he posted, as a response to one of my inquiries "See the appropriate Talk page, and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, sonny." and also otherwise, in his edit comments on the mentioned article he's not being nice. To be honest, I'm fed up with that (although it's also funny in a way). --Mathmensch (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User: 2604:2000:7111:7E00:59D5:5432:A297:1AB6

This user has been disruptively editing the page about the tag team known as The Usos. I noticed that he changed a date on the page from 2011 to 2010, and left a comment at the end of the paragraph to stop changing it back. I then undid this edit as a disruptive edit, and changed the year back to 2011. He reverted it back to his original edit, and then I left a warning on his page to stop changing it, as there is evidence to support the year 2011 in place of the year 2010 in the article. I then reverted his edit. He has since reverted it back, and I've decided to report this here in order to resolve this situation.Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738376497 His revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Usos&oldid=738383872

The user is still reverting edits. I've noticed he's also been making the same disruptive edits on the pages for Primo & Epico, Carmella, and Natalya. I tried explaining to him on both the edit summary and his talk page that he needs to stop the disruptive editing, but he just reverts every edit that goes against his. Can someone help with this situation. It's getting bad that he's providing false information on multiple pages.Dohvahkiin (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Anthony Duran

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

---

Despite their recent 24-hour block for edit-warring, Anthony Duran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made it very clear that they do not intend contribute in a constructive manner. A description of their behavior can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Love interests in harem anime content dispute, which they responded to by attempting to blank the discussion. They also regularly blank their own talk page and have attempted to delete sections on other's talk pages as well (see this). Given that they have stated their intent to continue with this behavior, a long-term block may be in order. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the kind of message I wanted to get while coming on. What bothers me is that the user made no effort with any form of communication until confronted by a final warning message in the form of an apology on my talk-page. Even after I said over and over "Discuss first" the editor chose to continue to POV push. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked by Dennis; I think the next block will be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kind of what I was thinking. I felt 99 hours was generous, maybe he didn't get the message last time, so this is long enough for reflection and to make a choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User:AdamDeanHall jumping the gun with WP:AIV reports

A month ago, User:Howiebraunstein made several well-meaning but not-good edits here.

Shortly after the last edit, User:AdamDeanHall:

• reverted all of Braunstein's edits with a really literal, really unhelpful edit summary at 22:49
• provided Braunstein with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 22:51
• and reported him at AIV at 22:53.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported, all in the span of four minutes.

Braunstein has not edited that article since the last in that series of edits Hall reverted. Per this message from User:Mrschimpf, a lot of work has gone into converting Braunstein into a better editor and Hall's highly inappropriate report could do real damage to that work. Hall did not respond to questions in that thread from Mrschimpf or me and it's since been archived.

Today, User:KyloRen123 added a claim to Star Wars: Episode VIII claiming that the film, which is still in production and doesn't come out until late next year, will be released in 2D, 3D, RealD3D, and IMAX formats. (I've looked around and found a few possible sources but nothing ironclad. At this moment, it looks like nobody, including director Rian Johnson, knows what format they'll use.)

Just like last month, shortly after that edit, Hall:

• reverted Ren's edit with a weird edit summary, this time one that could constitute a violation of the WP:OWN policy, at 18:19
• provided Ren with a strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template first-and-only warning for vandalism at 18:22
• and reported them at AIV at 18:25.

That's reverted, final warned, and reported to AIV, all in the span of six minutes.

I am not defending Ren's behavior or contributions. This person was causing more problems than doing good work, they ignored repeated offers to help and warnings to stop, they're gone for a month, and the project is better off thanks to a good, wholly unobjectionable block by User:Widr. I'm concerned that twice, Hall went through the revert-warn-report process when you're not supposed to go from warning to reporting unless the person has re-offended. These problems have been raised repeatedly with Hall in various places and he never seems to respond to anybody raising objections. Note that it's been over two hours since I created a thread at Hall's talk to ask him to explain this. He's edited several articles since but has not replied to me, nor to User:LLArrow's message right below mine. (And this pattern of inappropriate behavior and refusal to explain is probably a lot more substantial than just these two situations, per Mschrimpf and LLArrow.)

When I brought this up last month, after a long, contentious discussion (What? I was involved in a long, contentious discussion? Weird, right?), it was decided that since Hall was apparently aware of the issue, good faith would be assumed and admin User:KrakatoaKatie asked me to go to ANI if I ever felt that "there's a long-term behavioral issue". I was on the fence about this then; now, I believe this clearly constitutes a long-term behavioral issue. Others have noticed. And as I said before, it's really strange that Hall, who has been editing for just over ten years, remains so perpetually unaware of how to do stuff around here. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding, I tried to notify every user I mentioned here except KyloRen123, who is blocked for a month. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm in and out for the rest of the weekend, so I'll give my two cents now. As an AIV admin who is increasingly frustrated with the revert/warn/report cycle taking place in the space of mere seconds sometimes, I'd like an answer from ADH about his behavior. I expected him to say something in that discussion on my talk page that's linked here, but he didn't, and I find his lack of communication to be disturbing. I'll check back to see what ADH says. Katie^talk 22:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This "jumping the gun", as you put it, seems to be an increasing problem at AIV recently. I agree with Katie here. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Give them a strong warning & that if they do it again they'll be blocked, If they do it again block 'em per WP:Disruptive editing which is what it is anyway, Reverting, Warning and then reporting to AIV all in the space of 5 minutes (and when the editor hasn't even been on) isn't really how it's done and if they think otherwise then I question their competence but anyway warn them & if they repeat it block 'em. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure why they've decided to ignore this entire report and simply edit a wikilink in my above comment, Not really productive nor helpful ..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be more appropriate to warn and then immediately block? clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds beautiful!, Yes let's do that instead :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• This particular user has been the bane of many other editors existence for quite some time now. This is just a few examples of the disruptive/ownership qualities they have demonstrated time and again. I'd like to see decisive and permanent action taken. LLArrow (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• ADH responded on Katie's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• It should never have gone to AIV to begin with, it was an ANI issue. The free form format here is designed to deal with those issues. AIV is more rigidly formatted as there isn't much discussion, just decision making. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• This really needs to stop; I also had this interaction with ADH last week where I uploaded a properly licensed PNG image of WPWR-TV's new logo which lists a cable position and is used on-air, and they reverted back to a low-quality direct JPG saying 'If I still had Comcast, I'd be watching CW 50 on Comcast channel 184', which is not appropriate at all. Their WP:OWN issues with Chicago television articles really need to stop (I had to walk on eggshells trying to get my sourced edits to the WGN-TV/WPWR affiliation switch to stick). They also have major OWN problems with 2016–17 United States network television schedule (and years before) where his terms for time periods ('late fall/winter/spring' is more direct for a scheduling period but they refuse to consider that and go with a vague 'follow up' which is not a television industry term at all, and they refuse any attempt at compromise by not saying a word; I've given up there) are their rule of law. Their reactions to vandalism are beyond the pale, and these issues with ADH need to be dealt with once and for all. I must also ask for ADH to respond to this; their silence on any issue brought up is unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's learned that silence works given he's never been blocked for his various issues and editors give up rather than tie a can to his tail and get that infernal "follow-up" term gone. Time to take back the article and make an important point. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hall responded on Katie's talk and my talk with the same message:

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I just warn him. AdamDeanHall"

I responded:

"If you look at the discussion I started on Widr's talk page, no, you were actually right to do that. That's not even scratching the surface of the issue, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to keep any more discussion at WP:ANI. It's not really about me so it probably shouldn't be on my talk page. RunnyAmiga"

Update: Okay. I should have come here first before replying to him. After reading what everybody said here, I removed that message and posted this one:

"Go to WP:ANI and discuss there. People are not happy, and it's not just about your bad AIV report. RunnyAmiga"

Predictably, nothing but that ridiculous refactor of User:Davey2010's link. Oh, but he's also since added an infobox at the article for a 19-year-old TV movie starring Yasmine Bleeth. So that's nice. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So what happened? He found the one complaint I made that wasn't really on the ball, seems to have copied text from my headline and pasted it into his replies, apologized for something that wasn't as offensive as everything else, and ignored the several other issues that have been raised, including the problem of going through the vandalism-reporting cycle at supersonic speed. And he still hasn't posted here. Whatever happens, happens, so let me just say: I'm really not impressed, and I doubt anybody else is either. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But he had enough time to slip in and do this. That's ADH in a nutshell. We've got a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --Drmargi (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I warned KyloRen123 not to add unsourced material to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page, but I shouldn't have reported him on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Jumping the gun with my WP:AIV report was a mistake. Next time, I'll just warn him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Adam, I already posted that here. It's not even close to the only problem with you. Can you please read this entire thread and respond to people, and maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else that's already been linked to and copied here? You're doing nothing to help your cause. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And what about last month ? ... Was that a mistake too ? .... I call bollocks on the whole thing - You wanted said users blocked so you thought fuck it I'll try & game the system .... Unfortunately for you it's backfired spectacularly, Back on topic I would suggest you don't revert anyone (even if it's vandalism), Don't warn anyone and certainly don't go to AIV, Stick to editing. –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize for all the trouble I've been causing, like reverting all edits with really literal, really unhelpful edit summaries, providing people with strange, template-seeming-but-not-actually-a-template-first-and-only warning for vandalism, and reporting them at AIV. I won't do this ever again. I'll just stick to editing from now on. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I have absolutely no doubt that you haven't read this entire thread. Right up there I said you should "maybe have something to say other than text you copied from somewhere else" and you replied with text you copied from somewhere else. (And that's not to mention that per Widr, your report of KyloRen123 at AIV was good! It was appropriate! Why are you saying you won't ever report anybody to AIV ever again?) I mean, I'm trying here, but you've not given any real indication that you understand what you're doing. Maybe a topic ban would do the trick, but you've done so much harm at such a wide range of articles that I couldn't list all the topics you should be banned from. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He's copying what Davey2010 said. It honestly sounds kind of like a Jedi mind trick: "You will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." "I will stay away from AIV and stick to editing." I honestly don't know what to make of that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible bot?

220.255.100.134's contributions and associated edit summaries on WP:UFAA [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], and [121] have me curious if this user is possibly improperly running a bot script. I left a note on the user's talk page with links and also spoke with admin Bishonen, who recommended I post up here to get a better opinion. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

His edits are irregular and his summaries inconsistent, so I don't think it's a bot. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible breach of WP:NPOV,WP:V,WP:CON by user. Dispute - Geographical naming/decription in the article lead and geographical section

There have been an ongoin dispute in the article of Eritrea regarding which naming/region should be included in the lead sentence and in the geogarphical section of the article. It used to include "East Africa" before user user:soupforone changed it to only include "Horn of Africa" the 25:th of June 2016 [122]. This sparked of a dispute in the talk page [123] where I suggested to restore usage of "East Africa" or "Eastern Africa" since Eritrea is considered to be part of "East Africa/Eastern Africa" by Africa Union, UN and literature. I even suggested to include both "Horn of Africa" and "East Africa" in the lead and the geographical section of the article as an compromize which an admin also suggested. When this was rejected by the user:soupforone. I searched for outside opinions to get their views as an first step to get some outside input to the dispute, [124], [125]. When this failed I started a case in the dipsute resolution notice board [126], in the request I specifically asked for "Comments and opinions on what term should be used and opinions why both can't be mentioned" (referring to East Africa/Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa). After long discussion it resulted in a Rfc in the talk page of the article [127] dated to 15:th of august 2016. During the Rfc several helpful users (including user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer, user:SMcCandlish etc.) enagaged to try resolve this issue. At some stage a majority of five users favoured to include "eastern Africa" as a compass direction alongside Horn of Africa, which read "Eritrea is a east African country located in Horn of Africa", resulting in me basically implementing the suggestion based on the suggestions by involved parties in the Rfc. However these changes where reverted [128] by user:AcidSnow, which may be considered as a breach to WP:CON by possible interference of the consensus process. AcidSnow has for most part not enagaged in the dispute that has lasted for weeks other than simply agreeing with the standpoint of soupforone, which the case in the dispute resolution board and the talk page of the Eritrea article shows. However, the dispute later continued in the Rfc section in the talk page of the article, resulting in both parties providing their cases yet again.

User soupforne has rejected to accept and aknowledge the fact Eritrea is part of the "Eastern Africa" region, and is only willing to accept a suggestion that compromize only of "Horn of Africa." (and possibly also willing to include northeastern Africa). The user deos not rely on sources but rather opinions. The main argument by this user is that the usage of "Eastern Africa" could lead to confusion with "East African Protectorate" or "German East Africa".

My arguments and what other's has explained 1) Eritrea is considered as being part of "Eastern Africa" region by UN (United Nations geoscheme), [129] (M49 coding classification), [130], [131] and by African Union [132] etc. Those two organizations are central to this issue but Eritrea is regarded as an "East African" nation by other organization such as African development bank [133],[134] and Ethnologoue [135] to mention a few.

2)Eritrea is in literature [136] referred as being a country located in "Eastern Africa" even a simple google (books) search shows this. The country is associated with the term "Eastern Africa" in contemporary nomenclature, as seen in the AU eastern region, a UN designation, and the country's membership in different organization.

3) Eritrea was part of Italian East Africa in contrast to East African Protectorate (Kenya) and German East Africa (Tanzania,Rwanda,Burundi). So therefore the country has an history as being labeled as a East African country. Making user:soupforone's theory that "East Africa" is only entitled to countries that was included in East African Protectorate or German East Africa not legitime. To prevent confusion we even suggested to change usage of "East Africa" to "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa". We also suggested to linking "Eastern Africa/eastern Africa" to the wikipedia article East Africa which explains Eastern Africa thoroughly (e.g EA protectorate, African great lake region, Horn of Africa) yet to avoid confusion and to assist the reader with information on East Africa/Eastern Africa.

4) Usage of "Northeast Africa" cannot be used as an compass direction or a region desciption that Eritrea is part of. -since "Northeastern Africa" is sometimes confusingly referred to as "Horn of Africa". Making it redundant. -since "Northeast Africa" is not a recognized region like "Eastern Africa" as mentioned above -since the term "Northeast Africa" is difuse and vague -since this area sometimes includes North African/Middle Eastern country as Egypt, placing Eritrea in a different region than East Africa. or as user:Iloilo Wanderer desricbed it "Northeast Africa" seems to lump Eritrea in with Egypt, putting it in the Middle East, which it is not in (though it is part of the periphery).

5) Most Africa countries use a single cardinal direction on wikipedia. Intercardinals directions (e.g "Northeast Africa") to describe a country's geographical location are not common. For example, Senegal, Cabo Verd, Mali, Gambia are all locatated at the same lattitude as Eritrea or higher and all are located in Western Africa in their respective articles, pointing at the region they are a part of. This information is sufficent enough for the user to get an understanding of where a country is located. There is also a map in the article that compliments the lead sentence.

6) At least five users in the Rfc agreed to add more than one naming in the lead, besides Horn of Africa. Simply because it is helpful for the readers of Wikipedia.

For the reasons pointed out above I think the usage of "Eastern Africa" is legitime as a country location description, as a compass direction, and as a cultural decription for the article.

Since the dispute has come to a standstill I would like admins to: 1) Provide opinions on this matter. Suggestions that has been povided so far that does include Eastern Africa/eastern Africa: "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, a region in Eastern Africa" "Eritrea is a country located in eastern Africa" (leaving out HOA) "Eritrea is a eastern African country located in Horn of Africa" "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region of northern East Africa" (Maurutania example) or assist in providing new suggestions.

2) Consider if the behaviour of user:soupforone does breach wiki edit policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V and the act of good faith. In the Rfc a user pointed out this user's behaviour to be "careless at best and deceptive at worst." with regards to distorting what other's user has stated in the Rfc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The RFC hasn't been closed yet, and the posting party hasn't alleged disruptive behavior with respect to the RFC. Is there any reason why this dispute, which is correctly labeled as a content dispute, needs to be considered at this conduct forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry I re-labled it now. I am basically the posting party, I started a case on dispute resolution notice board that basically lead to the Rfc. The dispute is in a standstill since some users are refusing to compromize &/or possibly are interfering with consensus process. Therefore I would suggest that admins do take actions in order to try to assist in this issue. Or are you suggesting to redirect me to another board? Richard0048 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Richard0048 changed the geographical location of Eritrea from Horn of Africa to East Africa without any apparent justification [137]. While tidying up some unlicensed files, I rolled to the original toponym. He subsequently objected for the reasons above. After some fruitless discussion on the talk page, I contacted the administrator SilkTork to facilitate dialogue. SilkTork then suggested noting the three primary locations for Eritrea (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa) [138]. However, Richard0048 objected to all geographical phrasings that gave equal weight to Northeast Africa. I pointed out that the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [139]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [140], but apparently not with North East Africa [141], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. Chipmunkdavis then explained that both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa were unnecessary regional qualifiers since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located within these areas. Otakrem, AcidSnow and myself agreed with this reasoning; especially since the country policy stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular rather locations in the plural.

However, this rough consensus was apparently not satisfactory for Richard0048, so he posted on DRN [142]. After some fruitless discussion there, Richard0048 objected to the presence of the volunteer moderator Iazyges, whom he suggested was not being impartial since he too wound up favoring Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence. Consequently, the DRN discussion was eventually closed and the other moderator PlatypusofDoom instructed that the matter should be resolved through an RFC question on the Eritrea talk page, which I then initiated [143]. Support for Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" was a bit stronger in the RFC discussion, but still no consensus supported his change. For some reason, though, Richard0048 concluded that it did, so he then proceeded to alter the lede sentence to point to "East Africa" [144]. I reverted his change, explaining that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [145]. Unfortunately, this caveat apparently did not get through either. Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link shortly afterwards [146], only to be promptly reverted by Chipmunkdavis, who explained that "the RfC has not concluded" [147]. This second warning fell on deaf ears too, as Richard0048 simply reverted again [148]. AcidSnow then reverted him a third time, with a similar explanation that "the RFC hasn't ended" [149]. But this too was seemingly not enough, for Richard0048 reinserted the non-consensus link [150], forcing me to remind him that the RFC question was still ongoing per RFC:END [151]. While all of this was happening, Richard0048 also vowed on the talk page to open a mediation dispute over the geographical naming issue. I explained to him that doing so would be pointless since mediation is a voluntary mechanism per WP:RFM/COMMON, and it is a final stage in Wikipedia's content-dispute resolution process after an RFC question and a Third Opinion. Richard0048 ignored this warning as well and went ahead and sought mediation [152]. The mediation post was quickly dismissed on the grounds that it "fail[ed] to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums"", and that "an unclosed and unexpired RFC [was] pending on this issue and RFC's are a form of dispute resolution proceeding." Despite all of this, Richard0048 has continued to insist that the RFC has ended, and protests that I have unjustly impeded a supposed consensus in favor of his preferred East Africa locale. The fact that the RFC is indeed still ongoing has apparently not quite sunken in yet, though, even after SMcCandlish told him this outright-- "This is getting very tiresome Richard. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Simply asserting that everyone agrees with you to include "eastern" does not make it true. Not only does it not convince anyone, it is liable to turn them off from the idea, since it looks suspiciously like pushing some kind of political agenda. Please stop." [153]

I tried to extend an olive branch to Richard0048 by reassuring him that I, he and all the other parties would be bound by policy to respect the outcome of the RFC question, whatever that may happen to be. Unfortunately, this too doesn't seem to have been of much comfort since the long post above was evidently intended as a last ditch effort to sway consensus in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" geographical locale. One of the many ironies in that post is that he apparently continues to be believe, despite the plainly-worded admonishment above, that SMcCandlish is in favor of his "East Africa" link. The allusion to some supposedly "careless" statements on my part was taken out-of-context; it pertains to some paraphrasing I had made on the talk page vis-a-vis SMcCandlish's and Bermicourt's positions on the geographical location. I already laid to rest this confusion with direct quotes of their actual statements [154]. So as to remove any further ambiguity, SMcCandlish himself has also just clarified on the talk page that-- "I prefer the following (besides including HoA, which seems to be a cnosensus), in descending order, if we include a compass direction in the lead sentence at all, which strikes me as unnecessary, and the source of most dispute: northeastern, eastern, northeast, east, Northeastern, Eastern, North, East. Both the capitalisation and the truncation independently suggest that the term is a proper noun or term of art, yet in this particular usage it is neither, just a compass point. I consider that confusion potential more important than the more-specific vs. less-specific issue of north[eastern] versus east[ern], and prefer the former both because it is more specific and because it is less likely still to be confused with some specialized conception of what "[E|e]st[ern] Africa" means." [155] Thus, the claims that the RFC question has ended and that consensus is in favor of Richard0048's preferred "East Africa" locale are spurious. Soupforone (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How about "Eritrea is a Northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa region"? It captures all three: "Northeast", "Eastern", and "Horn of Africa"?Otakrem (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My actions were not a breach of consensus, so its not a surprise that you have presented no supporting diffs or anything else relevant for such a claim. The only user that has broken consensus throughout this issue is Richard0048 which can clearly be seen on the articles revision history (see here: [156]). Despite you their (see here: [157]), I have no affiliation with Soupforone. We're even currently engaging in our own dispute on my talk page, so I suggest that they drop this baseless accusation. In addition, Richard0048 has been continually forum shopping to receive support despite being repeatedly told not to: Admin C.Fred, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, threatening to call for more admins (see here, here, here, here, ect, there are more but these diffs are enough), and and now here. This is clearly evident in his decision to present his various arguments rather than solely focusing on his accusation of policy breaches: "My arguments and what other's has explained 1) {...}2) {...}3) {...}4) {...}5) {...}6)". I suggest that Richard0048 familiarize himself with WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze on pro wrestling articles

User:Ranze is a frequent contributor to professional wrestling articles. It's not unusual for Ranze to interpret a source totally different from everyone else, or for him to hear something an announcer said on television one time which is not backed up by sources, and edit war to keep that vision in the encycopedia. When this happens, the wikiproject has to stop what it's doing and clean up his mess.

Championship disputes

May-August 2015:Ranze spent last summer edit warring on Grand Slam (professional wrestling) over which potential candidates to list in the article.[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169]

November 23, 2015:Ranze believes that two title histories merged into one. This is almost unanimously rejected at Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

• He simultaniously edit wars on several articles during this time, including:Sheamus[170][171][172][173][174], List of WWE World Champions[175][176][177][178]WWE World Championship[179][180][181], Randy Orton[182][183][184][185], John Cena[186][187][188], Dwayne Johnson[189][190]
• This episode was put on hold when Ranze was blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranze/Archive#23 November 2015) when he editted while signed out to support his position on Talk:WWE World Championship/Archive 3#WHW contributes to reign total.

July 2016:Ranze revives the discussion at Talk:WWE World Championship#WHW counting resurrection, saying that despite the overwhelming consensus against him the first time it "did not get totally resolved". The result is no different than the first, Oknazevad and I both say we'll support a topic ban on professional wrestling articles if he cannot accept consensus and WP:DROPTHESTICK

August 2016:Ranze hears an announcer say something that leads him to believe another two title histories have been merged. He starts a topic at Talk:WWE Women's Championship#Charlotte 309 days and provides no sources to back up his theory. This theory is unanimous rejected.

Nicknames and redirects

August 2015:Ribbon Salminen warns Ranze that the redirects he is creating are "best useless and at worst completely misleading".[191]

September-November 2015:Ranze edit wars to list "Captain Morgan" as a nickname for Seth Rollins. Rollins had been called this as a joke.[192][193][194][195][196][197]

September 8, 2015:Nikki311 tells Ranze that while there is no set number on how many times a wrestler must be called a name for it to be a nickname it needs to be more than once.[198]

November-December 2015:Ranze asks WT:PW on what goes into a nickname, nobody seems to agree with his view.[199]

February 2016: Ranze creates redirect Iron Man of the WWE, it's deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12#Iron Man of the WWE. Two users comment that the redirect is misleading, one says that the name was only used once.

August 2016:Ranze edit wars to list "queen" as a nickname for Charlotte (wrestler).[200][201][202][203] Dismisses my edit war notice as "harassment"[204]

August-September 2016:Unicorn Freaks and Madame McMahon redirects are deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31. Multiple users point out that the names were used once.

Today:Five of his redirects are listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7. After nominating them for deletion, I warn Ranze that continued disruption would lead me to request a topic ban.[205] He first responds with an ad hominem attack on one of the delete voters[206], then says several members of the pro wrestling wikiproject are biased against them and their !votes should be overlooked, he argues that it shouldn't be deleted because unverified youtube channels, random twitter feeds, and reddit called someone by these particular insults which he made into redirects.[207] In a separate discussion, he then says delete votes aren't based on policy[208], and after I told him which policy[209] he tells me I'm wrong and links me to an unverifed twitter for proof.[210] He then goes to the admin that deleted Iron Man of the WWE and tells them that they did so in error.[211]

Discussion

We've tried to work with him and be patient with him. I've given him ample warning and other editors have to, but we've seen no change. Can someone step in and take a closer look at this? Given his history, this behavior is probably enough to warrant a harsh block but I am requesting a topic ban for professional wrestling articles. He has previously been handed topic bans on gamergate and gender issues and has been blocked for edit warring.[212]LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I also have given user multiple warnings. Most times when confronted or warned, Ranze removes warnings, or attempts to start discussion from their talk pages labeling it as "harassment". They show no intention of being a constructive contributor to professional wrestling articles. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has just now created the redirect Leader of the Altitude Era. Note that a similar redirect, Dawn of the Altitude Era, currently is at a unanimous delete at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7.LM2000 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In trying to discuss anything with them and why it is not sourced or unreliably sourced they simply dismiss your argument and then move to another set of unsourced/unreliable links to try and make themselves right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong and should be ignored/dismissed in their opinion. Ranze has been warned by several users and they simply delete the warnings and claim they are being harassed and go back to doing exactly what they were warned about. Everyone has tried to work with them but it's their way or no way. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing I occasionally ARCHIVE my talk page, which is not the same thing as deleting warnings. I don't ignore them, I have responded to them. The inversion you're attempting here is hilarious, because I am primarily the one who does bother to cite sources in these arguments, and others ignore this and just WP:POLL/WP:VOTE "Delete, per nom" type comments. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Classic Ranze behavior going on in the redirect discussion right now. He tells everyone that voted delete they're wrong and dumps several unreliable sources to prove his point.[213] When I explain why this isn't right,[214] he links me to a tweet where one of the subject's onscreen enemies used a hastag and youtube video of him talking.[215]LM2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He has a list of reliable professional wrestling sources pasted at the top of his talk page, I pointed this out in that discussion because he was posting unreliable sources. Less than an hour later, he posts even more from the unreliable list.[216]LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 and Crash Underride have been stalking my edits due to past disputes with me.

What LM mentions are completely supported redirects they have spuriously nominated without adequate investigation.

"Dawn of the Altitude Era" is used on official merch for the wrestler:

• http://shop.wwe.com/neville-altitude-era-authentic-t-shirt/W09608.html

"Leader of the Altitude Era" is something he is introduced as:

• "@WWENeville's Music Taste Makes Him Leader Of The Alt Hip Hop-itude Era". 27 November 2015. we couldn't have predicted just how much of a huge alternative hip hop fan the man billed as the Leader of the Altitude Era when he flies in, around and over the ring is away from the ring.

As you can see, they are not legitimately interested in bad edits or deleting bad redirects, just picking at anything possible they think they can use against me, and here it backfires, showing they are assuming bad faith and not investigating before objecting.

As can be seen at the July review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive194#Ranze the topic ban I received in 2015 is not in place (funny LM forgets to mention this) and as can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze in a May 2015 review, it was initially put in place special:diff/654927319 in April 2015 by User:Gamaliel, who has mysteriously retired from Wikipedia after, as @The Wordsmith: has pointed out to me, several similar sanctions were overturned on appeal after he was determined to be WP:INVOLVED and thus not a neutral party in relation to the issue I was given restrictions for. Ranze (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I ask administrators to look at a long term pattern of abuse here, not just one incident. He has long avoided blocks by skirting the rules; he'll edit war over long periods of time but will seldom break three reverts in one day, he'll create a redirect that somebody did actually call a subject one time but never again... just enough for it not to be a blatant hoax, he'll dismiss critiques as "harassment" and question editor's "honesty" but will stop short of making an egregious personal attack, he'll drop the stick for awhile only to pick it back up at a later date. I think the evidence provided speaks for itself.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze I find nothing about this funny or humorous, so unfortunate to see that you don't take this seriously. As for your "sources", Just like [this] site its the only one to ever call him that since 2015, one time doesn't make it notable. Just like this redirect The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking its nothing more than an insult and should be deleted. Your history speaks for itself and for these reasons I Support a topic ban Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Right after you say that he creates Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking. No regard for BLP and he knows it'll get deleted, The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking is at RfD and the discussion is unanimously against it.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment At the very least he should be banned from creating redirect's, as he's really wasting everyone's time with nonsense nicknames that are getting deleted left and right. And why is that? Because they are incredibly implausible search terms, the only reason to create redirects.

But frankly, after the WP:INCOMPETENT:incompetence I've seen, I think it should be a broader topic ban. Not because of the content, but because of the behavior, and the utter unwillingness to work collaboratively. He's constantly wasting other contributors' time, and shows a complete inability to drop the stick and accept that consensus doesn't agree with him (which itself largely stems from his inability to recognize that his pet theories amount to WP:SYNTH despite having this explicitly explained to him in very simple a, b, c form!) oknazevad (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)