Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [1] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [2] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [3]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [4] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [5][6][7]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[8]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [9][10]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [11] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [12]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [13] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [14]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[15] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [16] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [17][18] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [19]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [20][21] contrary to what the scholar said [22], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [23] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [24] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. [25] [26]Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• • We have agreed to block editor EthiopianHabesha, can admins intervene. Duqsene (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The other two threads about disruptive editing in the Horn of Africa area have been archived. Is there any intent to take any action on this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I am wondering about that too. EthiopianHabesha has been inactive after January 24, but only after repeating some of the same behavior at Talk:Oromo people and the article. I am wading through the paperwork to petition adding Horn of Africa space to AC/DS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would very much support the general principle of that idea. I have a little familiarity (only a little) with Ethiopia and the Oromo people, and they may well be one of the most politically controversial current topics related to that country, along with matters of how the Amhara and other groups have historically treated and regarded them. Having said that, I have no idea of how to exactly phrase a specific request for DS for the topic. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this -- late, as usual -- & as probably the one active Wikipedian who knows the most about Ethiopia & all of the potential problems for WP it poses I wish someone had dropped me a note sooner. All I can say at this point is wow. And admiration for @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Doug Weller: for trying to sort this matter out.

The problems with any Wikipedia article on Ethiopia will be as follows: (1) Lack of easily accessible information on many of the subjects; (2) potential ethnic/nationalist/religious disagreements (e.g., look at the article history for Demographics of Ethiopia & see how the numbers for the numbers of the Amhara & Oromo ethnic groups are routinely manipulated -- some folks in that country insist that the majority are & always will be the Amhara); (3) a large population who are just learning about the Internet; (4) a lack of understanding in Ethiopia of Western concepts such as "we can agree to disagree". (Yeah, #4 might sound racist, but having read much Ethiopian history I've found many disagreements over beliefs & ideology in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).

In the case of Oromo people, there is a lot of bad blood not only between the Oromo & the dominant Amhara & Tigray peoples, but the Oromo & other ethnic groups. Both sides have made some unsustainable claims about the other, & both sides have done some bad things to each other -- although the Amhara/Tigray have had the upper hand for the last 100-150 years. There are some errors & omissions in the article (I fixed one glaringly obvious one, which I suspect had slipped thru due to the edit wars ongoing), & once things have settled down a bit I'd be happy to provide some advice on how & where to improve the article -- with reliable sources. For example, if one has access to JSTOR one also has access to the invaluable Journal of Ethiopian Studies, which I didn't have before I grew tired of being the only contributor to articles on Ethiopia. (Another is Annales d'Ethiopie at persee.fr)

So @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion is quite reasonable. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question to @Llywrch:: I regret to say, given awareness of other controversial national topics like in China and Turkey, for instance, that there have been and still are a number of sources, including even in China academic journals, which might be considered pretty biased here. I have access to at least some books by Brill and (I think) some Ethiopian journals. I'm fairly sure the Brill books are reliable, but is there maybe a question regarding the real reliability of any of the Ethiopian journals here like there is in China and a few smaller countries? John Carter (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The easiest answer to your question would be that it's not relevant to WP:AN/I. But since it is a question Admins will need to know if discretionary measures are applied, I think it should be answered for reference.

First of all, there is practically no publishing industry in Ethiopia. I do own a few books published there, but they have been published in partnership with Western presses so I can't offer an opinion about the quality or reliability of books published in Ethiopia. As for academic journals published there, I have seen a journal of Ethiopian medicine (which can be found online), but I couldn't say how reliable its articles are since I know very little about medicine. In the area of journals on history, the two I mentioned above are very reliable.

Most Ethiopian academics are part of the Ethiopian diaspora, teaching at a university & publishing in North America or Europe -- so their reliability can be judged that way. There are two academics who work & live in Ethiopia that I am familiar with who are reliable: Bahru Zewde, who teaches at the University of Addis Ababa, & Richard Pankhurst, who has lived most of his life in Ethiopia & has written a library of books on that country. (The biggest problem I've encountered with Pankhurst's works is that he tends to reuse large parts of his earlier books in his later ones.)

Now if your question is about the Ethiopian news media, the answer to that is simple: Ethiopia is at the bottom of the list of countries in terms of press freedom, & in 2008 or 2009 went so far as imposing severe restrictions on NGOs about commenting on conditions inside that country. Many times, looking for information on contemporary events in Ethiopia, I could only find information in blogs or social websites -- which don't meet Wikipedia standards, despite my sense they told the truth. I did quote the official Ethiopian news sources for some details, but in a careful manner, & only about things I felt were verifiable, e.g. "ENA reports that the government opened a new hospital in this woreda" -- one could visit the site & verify if a hospital actually was built & opened; if not, well then it's clear the official news agency was lying.

I need to point out that this threatens to offer a simplistic view of Ethiopian government public relations. On one hand, in many cases the information I looked for simply did not exist: government websites were often little more than a series of IIS templates someone in the IT department uploaded during an afternoon & no one ever looked at again. Government ministers rarely had CVs available online, let alone official biographies. Ethiopian society still relies heavily on oral sources of information -- with all of its weaknesses -- which means there is no reliable sources for facts or assertions that are commonly accepted as true. On the other hand, I found the website of the Central Statistical Agency, which handles the Ethiopian censuses, very professional & surprisingly accurate when you consider what they had to work with; I fully trust their census reports, which I used as much as possible in the relevant articles.

To repeat myself, the information about is often incomplete, very uneven in quality, & requires some experience to not only find but understand & use. And I haven't even touched on the countless rivalries that permeate that country, which can lead the involved parties to lie; fortunately, many of those are not very sophisticated in their misrepresentations & can be caught in their lies. (On the other hand, I found several people with personal ties to Ethiopia understood very well how to participate on Wikipedia & were very constructive editors. I only wish I knew how I could have retained them.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• It'll soon be a month since this thread began. Is this going anywhere? EEng 05:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Eventually, yeah. Ethiopia as a broad topic is, more or less, as Llywrch indicates above, a bit of a mess, and we are trying to find some ways to resolve it. Understandably, however, with such a big mess (about 100 million people and 80 ethnic groups in the country) it can reasonably take a while to resolve. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Several of the editors who were the subject of this and other AN/I discussions regarding editing of Horn of Africa articles seem not to have edited since late January. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on the glacial time scale of this thread that's just an eyeblink. EEng 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I just wondered whether it could be a deliberate strategy to avoid further scrutiny, and thought it was suspicious that several editors all stopped editing at around the same time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors

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

---

For some time now, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) has been conducting a disruptive war of attrition on other editors, based on imposing a simplistic blanket interpretation of styleguides over common practice within specific fields. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Page move ban, and the links from there. The two main aspects are about capitalisation: Should Heart of Wales Line et al be capitalised? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line' and hyphenation: Harz Narrow Gauge Railways etc. Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains#Potential mass move of railway articles could hinge on discussion at one article.

This much is bad enough. An argument is being sustained as a personal crusade, hoping simply to outlast the staying power of the many editors who disagree with him. His colleague in this has been misquoting ArbCom as personal userpage threats those opposing them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Threats from SMcCandlish. Now though, Dicklyon is treating those who disagree as liars. Enough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And away we go again. You are reminded that "Threats from SMcCandlish" was closed by two uninvolved as unfounded, one advising you to drop the stick. And this did not call anybody a liar and didn't approach personal attack. If Dicklyon or anybody else has violated behavior policy or guideline, please cite the p or g and provide diffs. Otherwise stop using ANI as a weapon in a content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I second this. Just because the real world has turned really ugly doesn't mean that editors can repeat it here by using this forum for continual attacks to get their way. Tony (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Saying that someone knows something is untrue and is saying it anyways *is* an accusation of lying. This is not even slightly difficult. How can you not know this? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How can you not know this? Did you just call me a liar? Using words like "Oh, bullshit" does not increase the strength of one's argument. I call for close before this spirals out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any of that rose to the level of calling other people liars. At most some people were accused of forgetting certain things and having to be reminded of them. That's no big deal. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh, so Dicklyon using his phrasing "did not call anyone a liar" and yet somehow my using the phrasing did? Or at least enabled you to resort to the tired "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR" rhetorical device? I'd say that you've demonstrated that using "bullshit" to describe what you call an argument is merely an accurate description. Here, do you need any help in coming with any less-cliched rhetorical fallacies? This might give some help. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not helpful. I believe that Mandruss' question was intended as an ironic way of suggesting that neither your comment nor Dicklon's was an example of calling someone a liar. Paul August ☎ 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course it was. I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you've decided to go with "moving the goalposts" as today's rhetorical fallacy. Tell me, are you working off a checklist?

I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton No, I'm certainly perfectly aware that making up bullshit excuses for bad behavior is not helpful. Perhaps you should stop? Or do you have more rhetorical fallacies on your bucket list? --Calton | Talk 12:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I support Andy Dingley's complaint about User:Dicklyon, and that complaint should not be closed just yet. There is clearly an issue as to whether the latter has been disruptively editing, because the latter has been making similar moves to multiple pages without discussion where there is no consensus for such a move. In my view (expressed on Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony), a large part of this disruptive editing is based on a misinterpretation of MOS:HYPHEN, which, in my view, neither requires nor supports such a move. Also, saying to another editor "It's not credible that you've never seen "narrow-gauge railway", is an accusation of lying, in my view. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The moves under question were already addressed, here, which is why the RM discussion is open. Can't have it both ways, proposing that Dicklyon is a bad guy for doing manual moves instead of opening RM discussions, and that he's also a bad guy for opening RM discussions instead of doing manual moves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for Andy Dingley, for misuse of ANI to try to get his way in a trivial content dispute, and for excessive, battlegrounding personalization of title and style disagreements, per WP:ARBATC; Dingley received a {{Ds/alert}} about ARBATC only a little over a week ago [27]. Aside from this frivolous and unclean-hands ANI filing – already a "spiral out of control" – Dingley also posted the following WP:ASPERSIONS about Dicklyon, under the heading "Back at ANI", at Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony itself, instead of writing something more reasonable at DL's user talk page: "Dicklyon, this edit crosses another line. You do not get to describe other editors as liars, simply for disagreeing with you." [28]. This does not comport with WP:TALK policy, and seemed to serve no purpose but to try to color the RM and its closure against DL and anyone else who is not in agreement with Dingley.

  Dicklyon expressing his own credulity level is not "describing other editors as liars". Also, what that other editor posted was not "simply ... disagreeing with [DL]", it was reality-denial, of all the sourced evidence already posted in the RM by DL and by others (including substantial source research by me). The "personal crusade" here is Dingley's 'my topic is magically special and immune to guidelines, evidence, and reason, and I'll have your head for saying it isn't so' behavior. It is disruptive, now of multiple pages and processes, and uncivil.

  Finally, Dicklyon using the prescribed WP:RM process to request moves – based on WP:P&G, evidence in reliable sources, and previous RM precedent – after specifically being instructed by ANI a year or two ago to do so, is hardly "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors"; it's doing as instructed by the community. This was reaffirmed in another ANI, in which Dingley participated, within the month, so Dingley is well aware his hyperbolic accusations are false. That also makes this "re-ANI" an attempt at WP:OTHERPARENT shopping. Dingley is further well aware that his claim of a "common practice within [this] specific field" to drop hyphenation has been disproved, again with RS, in the very RM he's trying to WP:WIN by ANI abuse (the sources are not consistent at all, so we do what MoS says to do, as usual; we don't fight about it article by article until until someone bleeds out). Dingley's is a WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:TE, and WP:WINNING pattern. It has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that Andy D. is over reacting in this instance. Already two non-starters have been presented. It seems Dicklyon did not call anyone a liar. Also, I am going to AGF about the DS template ANI and say that this as threat was misinterpreted. Apparently there are discretionary sanctions regarding MOS issues, and to be forewarned is to be equipped. I don't understand why that is being brought into this discussion, because it was a non-issue.

It also seems to me this is misuse of ANI. Pertaining to the DS Template ANI that was a non-issue, so why bring it here. Andy, do you think it is credible to call a DS template a threat and bring that to ANI? Andy has been around on Wikipedia for a long time (since 2007) along with 113,412 edits. He is a seasoned editor. This really has to stop.

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. The result of that page move ban was no consensus, but part of that finding was that he engage in discussion to develop consensus. This seems to be exactly what he is doing. Please stop bringing the page ban move to ANI every time there is a discussion about Dicklyon unless he is unilaterally doing numbers of page moves. It would be like he lost all good judgement and it seems that has not happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. -- really, no, just no. We can and should set limits or else the discussions might never stop. I don't claim those limits have been reached here yet, but it's clear that there is unhealthy MOS obsession going on. Almost all MOS disputes are bullshit and when it's the same few people in the center of them over and over, the question of the community's patience has to come into view. I'd oppose boomeranging Andy in this incident. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a BOOMERANG is a punitive over-reaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing punitive about it, but purely preventative. It's clear he will continue escalating in this direction until restrained.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What? Looking for a new club now that your attempt to hijack the Discretionary Sanctions process is failing at WP:AE? --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is "unhealthy MOS obsession" is decided by consensus. That's consensus established by Wikipedia process, not individual arm-waving and the volume of voices ("I don't give a damn what you think", "Oh, bullshit") in spurious ANI complaints. Dicklyon has consistently followed Wikipedia process, and it's just too damn bad if certain people are on the losing end of that. A few people need to read and internalize Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:How to lose. Anarchic mob rule seems to be on its way out at en-wiki, thankfully, and I'm here to help it find the door.
I don't really care if Dingley gets his just desserts here, but how else is this business finally going to end? It doesn't appear that he and others are going to stop unless forced to stop by the community.
One of Dicklyon's opponents clearly violated WP:CANVASS yesterday or the day before. He could have had an actual ANI case, but declined to bring it, and the violator gets off scot-free. In contrast, Dicklyon is careful not to violate such policies, so his attackers are forced to invent extra-policy rationales and throw smoke. I think that's a fair illustration of the difference between him and them. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The "style trivia disruption" is, as usual, being caused by "topical fiefdom" editors who disavow the applicability of site-wide guidelines to "their" topic, even when the preponderance of sources is against them, and when then turn the dispute nasty and personal when it looks like they might not get their way. This continuing pattern of WP:1AM / WP:FACTION escalation against WP:P&G on micro-topical basis needs to be brought to an end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misidentify which end of the 1AM is which. The author of that essay has also done the same thing multiple times (in good faith of course). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that if you're upset at having your arguments termed "bullshit", your best bet would have been not to provide bullshit arguments. Just saying. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Come on, really? It seems as if any attempt by Dicklyon to advocate for his opinion, is seen by some of his opponents as "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors". This seems like an abuse of ANI to me. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not the "any attempt"; it's that we're by now in the nth occurrence of "what, this again?" that makes this recurring issue so tedious. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, it must be tedious for Dicklyon to be forever defending himself for following correct procedures and protocols. Primergrey (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, it's tedious for editors to be constantly put with with editors who've confused styles of language and guidelines with religious dogma. It's tedious for repeatedly disruptive behavior -- behavior that's been sanctioned by ArbCom, no less -- cropping up again and again. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any evidence that the average Wikipedia reader cares even one iota about whether "line" should be capitalized or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. But Dicklyon clearly does, and he's happy firstly to waste everyone else's time arguing the point, and then to start abusing people over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So if the general public doesn't care, why do you care about it so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Because I am tired of Dicklyon wasting the time of more productive editors with an incessant stream of these renames. And secondly, some of them (like Heart of Wales Line) are simply wrong. This is why he has only recently been at ANI with editors seeking a topic ban. Yet still it continues. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As trivial as it is, if it's wasting your time, then that's by your choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are the one acting outside of process and policy here. You have asserted one violation of behavior p&g, and it's laughable. If that's the best you have, I suggest you withdraw. The only viable reason to leave this open at this point is because some editors would like to see a boomerang sanction per WP:HA. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am not interested in a Boomerang at this time. But maybe other editors are, and I can't speak for them. I don't know who was doing the Canvassing but that was out of line, I think for obvious reasons. From my experience on Wikipedia - emotions do not equal justification - and I think I am talking about myself. Oh yeah, I've gotten upset at times - but somehow I remember to look at the long term, and see what effect my disagreeable behaviors will cause for me, as an editor. Yes, this is a selfish point of view - maybe it is called self-interest (self-preservation). Well enough about me...how you doin'? (referring to anybody here) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll address who did that canvassing in a subtopic below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen some of the dispute about this, and want to chime in with this positive note about User:Dicklyon's editing (and feel free to cite this). One area of Dicklyon's MOS-related page-moves and editing within articles is about dashes vs. hyphens in topics like Ritch–Carter–Martin House, a historic house listed on the U.S. National Register. Dicklyon has been super about addressing a concern I raised and shared with WikiProject NRHP, about incompatibility of redlinks changed to use dashes vs. other redlinks that continue to use hyphens for the same topic, amongst WikiProject NRHP's many list-articles and related disambiguation pages. They're cooperating fully with a workaround (adding changed redlinks to a worklist), summarized publicly at wt:NRHP#hyphen vs. dash issue monitoring after some civil discussion elsewhere. Frankly I am glad someone is taking on the task of changing hyphens to dashes where appropriate, which I perceive everyone was expecting but avoiding as it was likely to blow up in some way, and it is going fine. Thanks, Dicklyon. Thus endeth my !vote of appreciation. :) --doncram 00:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I understand this: are you saying there are some nonexistent articles that are redlinked in multiple styles, and that's a problem that needs fixing by some means other than writing the article and creating the redirects that are needed anyway? Why not just leave the redlinks alone? Writing the article and making the redirects will fill them all in anyway. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I got drawn into this debate, when I had a totally unnecessary and frightening box slapped onto my talkpage.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI when I had the audacity to pointout that some editor who had dropped in had made a silly or stupid edit without any understanding of the nuances or facts. Ignoring my local knowledge, and without resorting to the talk page. In response I see all these WP: flying around. The central point that my interpretation was consistent with MOS:GEOUNITS was ignored, See article on forms of passive aggression- the issue was one of hierachy and control. I am not surprised that this debate has been further deflected by another foray into a further WP, and I am sad to say the same tactic of demonising the messenger- which to my mind proves the point under debate. From my experience, Andy's initial comment was right. Technically he has always been right and it is disgraceful the amount of time wasted when there is so much to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Enough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. I'm starting to think that it's Dicklyon who should not have to tolerate the abuse at this point in time, with a second ANI listing in the space of one month. I interact with him around the place from time to time, and we don't always see eye to eye, but he is fundamentally courteous and I have rarely if ever known him to overtly break rules or continue with controversial actions if it emerges that consensus is against them. Clearly he has strong beliefs on certain issues, for example down casing of titles, commas in WP:JR, and hyphens/dashes, and will happily spend lots of time discussing those issues and editing articles accordingly, but in no way is that the same as disruption. Repeated listings of him at ANI, for what are fundamentally just content disputes, does not reflect well on those carrying out those listings. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Boomerang – Content and personality squabbles are not AN/I fodder. Furthermore, this an abuse complaint by proxy. Nobody called Andy Dingley a liar. If Corinne feels abused or harrassed, Corinne should file their own complaint. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Character example: ..."fundamentally courteous"...??? While unrelated to railroad articles, this recent edit by User:Dicklyon, "K, you're being an asshole; cut it out.", may perhaps serve as an example of his present demeanor and approach towards fellow editors. To my knowledge, I've had no previous interactions with the user, he just swept in and reverted me on my own user talkpage on behalf of User:Checkingfax whom I had shortly before served with an edit warring warning (which was quickly removed along with its own rude/confrontational edit summary). As User:Dicklyon has been previously blocked for use of sockpuppets in addition to his numerous edit warring blocks, I'm inclined to wonder about what relationship may exist between the two. I offered User:Dicklyon an opportunity to elaborate on his talkpage and he simply directed me back to the summary (where he'd called me an 'asshole' by way of introduction). --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The CANVASS and FACTION issues

Since Steve Quinn and some others seem unaware of the details: The canvassing of railfans to the RM discussion was done by Bermicourt in an alarmist and highly non-neutral post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains [29]. Bermicourt posted this in direct response to my request for reversal of his mass moves to strip hyphens from articles with "narrow-gauge railway" in their titles while two RMs about the matter are still ongoing, and someone else's proposal that the Saxony RM determine outcome for the whole lot of them [30].

This was followed in the same thread at the wikiproject talk page by what is difficult to interpret as anything but pointed and direct canvassing by Redrose64 [31] to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon (after the one the other day on the exact same matter didn't extract a pound of flesh from him [32]); here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter. This WP:DRAMA-activism incident strikes me as questionable conduct for an admin like Redrose64, especially one well aware of WP:ARBATC and the sanctions applicable to personalizing title and style disputes. Its hard to picture anything more personalizing of such a dispute than to incite a wikiproject, which exists to work on article content, to instead "wiki-politically" research dirt on and then go after another editor just because he's in a content dispute with some of that wikiproject's participants (over a trivial and entirely routine, guideline-compliance move request, backed by sourcing).

As noted above, Andy Dingley then canvassed RM participants to this very ANI discussion, with a post to Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony directly under the still-ongoing RM, highlighting the ANI case, and making unreasonable accusations [33].

This is WP:FACTION behavior, in an anti-consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL in particular) direction of WP:OWNership of a topical category, and disruption and abuse of process. Wikiprojects, article talk pages, RM, and ANI do not exist for organizing and executing anti-guideline campaigns or bounty-hunting against other editors in content disputes. If it doesn't stop, maybe it's time for ArbCom to address it. These editors could even theoretically come up with some "smoking gun" of proof that their anti-hyphenation stance is correct (good luck with that, since it's already been disproven), yet their behavior would still be wrong and sanctionable. RM is a reasoned, civil discussion to assess facts, rationales, and consensus; it's not a topical "great wrongs" battlefield of ideologies and personal vendettas.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not there "to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon" and I resent the accusation. Nor did I make any comment whatsoever in the previous ANI. As for "here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter" - did I raise this ANI? No.

My concern that in the last few weeks we have had a whole heap of undiscussed page moves (by various people, but Dicklyon most of all) and it's time for people to slow down - even stop - and consider what others might think before taking unilateral action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not anti-hyphen either. Just so you know. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Most admins resent it when people criticize admin-unbecoming things they do. Admins are held to high standards and sometimes forget this. It takes conscious effort to live up to them. You didn't file the ANI yourself, but you encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute that a handful of them care about over-much, and here we are. Getting others to do the ANI dirty work for you when one with your experience would expect community blowback for filing a frivolous complain is what we call "throwing people under the bus". I never said you participated in the earlier ANI, though you've been involved in plenty of disputes with Dicklyon and against MoS compliance. I didn't say you were anti-hyphen, either; you're just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic despite the sources not supporting its removal as any kind of special convention.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again you claim that I "encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute" - nowhere have I requested that anybody do any such thing. Also, if I am "just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic", please indicate exactly where I have sided with an anti-hyphen position. I have already demonstrated (above, at 22:15, 29 January 2017) that I am not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We can start with a quote of your post at WT:WikiProject Trains. Quote: Let me guess - were the moves made by Dicklyon (talk · contribs)? If so, you might like to look through their user talk page, also several threads on WT:UKRAIL, and this discussion at ANI." How is this not a) siding with those at the wikiproject (which is hardly unanimous on the matter) to defy MOS:HYPHEN; b) misusing a wikiproject page to encourage drama-mongering against a particular editor you have an issue with; and c) further personalizing a title and style dispute? Consider this a rhetorical question for personal and community reflection. My goal here is not to get into an interminable argument with you about what your motivations may have been (I'm not a mind reader, and this is about the result of the poor decisions, not the path taken to arrive at it), or to see you punished. It is to prevent a repeat of something like this, and to get this vexatious rehash complaint against Dicklyon dismissed rapidly so we can all do something less pointless than continue to argue about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to have as little understanding of Wikiprojects as you do of Arbcom and its usefulness for threatening editors with [34]. It is far from canvassing for a project to publicise significant project-wide issues across a project. Especially not when there is a serious WP:OWN problem from Dicklyon, an editor who has no other evident engagement with or interest in railway topics. He is insistent on imposing trivial styleguides over content, doing this across a wide range of articles, and using one article talk: page (not the project) to establish some sort of "precedent" here (BTW - we don't work by precedent). In such a situation, it's entirely appropriate and useful to the project for Bermicourt to flag this on the project page. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And you could brush up on WP:TPO too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The notice violated WP:CANVASS because it was not neutral, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. As for WP:OWN, your understanding of that policy stops short of its nutshell. It's about preventing others from editing or participating at an article; there has been zero indication that Dicklyon has tried to prevent anybody from doing either. The nutshell ends with, "Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page" - exactly what Dicklyon has been doing. Please learn something about p&g before you cite it, especially here at ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Let's get through this quickly and in an orderly fashion, Andy:
  • What Mandruss said. ^^
  • I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have, and been more involved in their development (including of MoS and naming conventions guidelines for some of them, written specifically to explain how to apply site-wide AT and MoS to the topic, instead of trying to defy them for topical-insider stroking purposes to the detriment of our general readership).
  • Dicklyon didn't propose using that one particular RM's outcome to establish a precedent for the rest of the category; Mandruss did [35]. Get your facts straight. But it's normal, everyday WP process do that anyway. We apply the reasoning in RMs to similar cases; we don't re-re-relitigate the same tired details over and over until you've browbeating your enemies into submission. It is certainly not cause for raising a bloc-voting alarm in a wikiproject to stack the outcome against everyone else on Wikipedia.
  • RM is a site-wide process specifically designed, like RfC, to bring in diverse viewpoints and thwart the "local consensus" effect. Most Wikipedians prefer that WP be written in a consistent manner instead of being stylistically PoV-forked, or we would not have AT policy, the MoS, or the naming conventions in the first place. Most editors understand that the encyclopedia is written for a general audience, and is written by people who edit all over the place and are not in a position to memorize 10,000 different topical style quirks that fans and alleged experts in this topic and that one and that other one all insist is the One True Way to write anything about their magically special topic. This is not RailfanPedia.
  • Please stop playing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You already tried to pillory me at ANI for delivering a standardized, ArbCom-specified notice to your talk page, and it was independently closed twice against your viewpoint that it was inappropriate. You received a notice, not a threat or accusation. Suggesting that ArbCom is the place to deal with an ongoing and long-term behavioral conflict if ANI won't isn't a threat, either, it's what ArbCom exists for and why WMF impose an ArbCom on Wikipedia in the first place.
  • You could brush up on WP:TALK policy and WP:REFACTOR. Personal disputation about behavior and disciplinary actions for it does not belong on article talk pages.

Are you done now, Andy?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• To see Bermicourt's notification as inappropriate per WP:CANVASS, I can only assume that you do so (as you haven't specified) on the basis that members of a project are an inherently partisan audience. You would be wrong in that.

As to WP:OWN, Dicklyon's actions are most easily described as a form of Gish Galloping - he seeks to swamp others by sheer volubility and persistence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you weren't done. To see Bermicourt's post as inappropriate all I have to do is read WP:CANVASS and note that the post's wording was quite non-neutral. Which I already said. And as someone else already said, WP:OWN applies to attempts by individuals and wikiprojects to control the content of a page or topical category against "outsiders"; a topical outsider like Dicklyon trying to bring a page closer to guideline compatibility and to consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia and readers' expectations is the diametric opposite of that. Andy, at what point are you going to stop playing transparent NOTGETTINGIT games? And please actually read Gish gallop; it bears no relation of any kind to listing some articles at RM, civilly discussing rationales for moving them (at which Dicklyon is actually quite concise), and providing evidence in support of those rationales, which is what Dicklyon is doing and what the RM process exists for in the first place. Now compare gish gallop to your habit of going page by page raising the same objections over and over again no matter how many times they are disproved, and injecting various straw man arguments and hand-waving as distractions. It's a much closer match.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is also the problem of Dicklyon raising bulk rename proposals repeatedly Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line#Requested move 26 January 2017 and then Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line#Requested move 27 January 2017 in the most obscure of places. Do you really think that the relevant projects need to be deliberately kept in the dark over these? After all, you've founded so many wikiprojects, you must be some sort of expert on them.Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How is that a "problem"? It's normal, intended RM process to multi-nominate moves when they raise the same question, so that the community can consider them at the same time and so that RM admins do not have to close 10, 20, 50, whatever near-identical RMs and have to act on them separately. Doing moves properly is an involved process and time-consuming, best done in groups when possible. Did you even read the previous ANI requests against Dicklyon and their conclusions at all? He was specifically instructed to use the long-form RM process for this and reminded that centralized discussion to reach consensus was the way to go, rather than moving articles around one by one in any cases that might be "controversial". Aside from the fact that the present "controversy" is entirely artificial (a product of tendentious resistance against sources and everyday English by you and a handful of others), what you're doing is demanding that ANI reverse itself on two previous decisions about the same editor, just to keep him away from "your" topic. Doesn't work that way. Finally, no one suggested keeping anyone in the dark about anything, so I'm not sure where that straw man is coming from. You seem to just be thrashing at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have"

And that gives you a greater voice? (well, clearly a louder one). You are losing complete sight of how WP is constituted to operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Another straw man; I made no such argument, only pointed out that you're not in a special position to lecture me about what wikiprojects exist for and how they work. Given that I clearly understand WP is constituted to operate as an anyone-may-edit-anything collaborative project for a general audience, and all the arguments you are making are for clustered content control fiefdoms of specialists/fans writing for other specialists/fans, keeping everyone else at bay, I don't seem to be the one who's lost sight of anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You and Dicklyon are a rolling tag team to impose over-simplistic lowercasing on every article you can find: Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle#Requested move 7 January 2017 But of course, "PS: I'm an NRA member and a sharpshooter bar-9, from a multi-generation military family, so don't give me any of that "only gun and mil people would understand ..." guff. " so your voice carries so much more weight than anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Stanton keeps talking about the MOS overriding the "local consensus" of actual content decisions all over the wiki. In reality, sitewide consensus is what editors all over the site do, and the MOS itself is the local consensus of the MOS specialists who edit MOS pages and impose MOS bureaucreacy on articles, instead of editing content as content. So the CONLEVEL argument should go the opposite way of what Stanton suggests, imho.

  RGloucester had a proposal a while back (that he called "unthinkable", but that sounded like a great idea to me) of demoting the MOS from "guideline" to "suggestion" in order to stop some of this insanity. Maybe that can be done through MfD, though such a proposal should be preceded by a lot of preperatory work. In any case, the crappy reception that the MOS specialists get from generalist editors in these discussions tells me that the consensus behind the MOS is not as strong as SMC seems to think it is. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You've clearly not actually read and understood WP:CONLEVEL, which the community adopted specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to make up their own local "rules" against site-wide consensus. You're getting generalist and specialist backward. MoS is a site-wide guideline; that's generalist by definition. A tooth-and-nail fight by a handful of topic over-controllers to go against that guideline when the sources don't back them, just because some of the specialized sources (which are not written in encyclopedic style) agree with them (see WP:CHERRYPICKING) is specialist editing, also by definition. The funny thing is, exceptions can always apply to MoS or any other guideline; MoS in various places (and COMMONNAME, in WP:AT policy) say to do what the sources do instead of what our default would be, if the sources consistently do something different from what we do. Yet the source do not in this case. WP follows the sources; why won't the railfan contingent?

    Good luck with your anti-guideline campaigning. You should probably also read WP:MFD's intro materials and WP:DE first, since they directly address why trying to get rid of guidelines the community has adopted simply because you don't like them. There is no "insanity" here. There's a lot of disruption, and about 99% of it comes from people try to defy guidelines and write WP articles to conform to the expectations of insular groups of fan forum, aficionado magazines, and ivory-tower academic journals, instead of general-audience writing. (PS: Please log in; only two editors address me habitually by me first name here, and one has already posted in this thread, so you are not gaining any anonymity.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon

I'm not sure what made Andy think it was appropriate to come here instead of joining the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Decapitalizing_Line that prompted some of the RM discussions and moves he's talking about. The only serious accusation I see is that I called User:Corinne a liar; I did not, and she did not take my comment that way, and has since changed her comments to be more credible, and has retracted her opposition to the move in question. 'Nuff said? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that a lot of editors really do not care about whether we follow title guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS; I don't understand why in not caring they feel they should jump in and add noise, like Baseball Bugs does above, but sometimes they can't resist. In the discussion about downcasing railway lines, there's some general unease, especially about process. Some have pushed me to open RM discussions even when the recommendation of WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear. Some say we can't decide these case-by-case, some say we do have to do it case-by-case. So I did a few:

• Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford_Line#Requested_move_26_January_2017 – unopposed
• Talk:New_Haven–Springfield_Line#Requested_move_26_January_2017 – widely opposed; apparently American rail articles by convention ignore WP:NCCAPS
• Talk:Redhill_to_Tonbridge_Line#Requested_move_27_January_2017 – procedurally opposed, 30 similar ones at once

The British rail fans seem of mixed mind about the 30-article multi RM. Some seem to want to stonewall to slow me down, even though they don't actually oppose any of the proposed moves. Others seem afraid that I might come back and do 30 separate RM discussions and waste even more time, which is not what I or anyone wants.

I think what will help with these is if a wider audience of editors will look and decide whether to support or oppose on the merits, independent of feelings about me, MOS, railfans, and other personalities. Maybe someone could do a "central" listing of these few to see where that takes us? Or should there be a separate discussion, perhaps an RFC, to figure out whether these articles should follow WP:NCCAPS or not? Someone more neutral than me could perhaps take on doing such a thing? Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You are inventing an opposition to changes like "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" when there is none. Maybe in the US there is, but for the UK lines I've seen no opposition to the broad adoption of the lowercase, as per the styleguide. However this is a 'broad styleguide, not a mandatory rule.

When the names are treated, in sources, as proper names then they should be capitalised. You disagree. No one "of the British railfans" is seeking any more than this.

Why you're seemingly happy to let the US lines stay as capitalised "because they're USA" but raising complaints about any opposition in the UK, that's another question. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I noted that "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" is unopposed; I listed it as one of the RM that came out of that discussion when someone in that discussion reverted what most of us would have taken to be uncontroversial. The ones listed at the RM on Redhill to Tonbridge line are similarly uncontroversial, yet procedurally stonewalled by the rail fans; you could help there. On Heart of Wales line, I don't recall anything about that being questioned, challenged, or reverted; did someone object to the downcasing? Where? And on the American lines, no I am not happy to leave them as an exception to WP:NCCAPS, and would welcome your help in fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with this issue. Any time of yours that's being wasted is by your own choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. You, too. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out a colon. I was responding to Dingley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This page is not for resolving content disputes. The only relevant questions here are: What, if any, behavior p&g has been violated, to what extent (sanctionable?), and by whom? Please confine discussion to those questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that its not for discussing the substance of the content dispute. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. I'm asking admins and experienced editors to help break the stonewalling that's making me and Andy and others frustrated with the process. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

My perception is that non-behavior admin issues are more properly handled at WP:AN. There needs to be a clear separation between behavior and content, widespread disregard for that separation notwithstanding. As to the content issues, I don't think all of the non-admin WP:DR avenues have been exhausted in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this specifically qualifies as an "incident" as per the top of the page, more or less as per Mandruss immediately above. I do get the impression that this is a long, drawn-out affair with individuals in fairly entrenched positions, although obviously I could be wrong, and that isn't good, and I again like Mandruss hope that, maybe, if nothing else, starting a widely-publicized Request for Comment or similar discussion to establish guidelines as firm as possible for matters of this kind (to the degree that such is possible) would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Since all of the disputed articles/titles seem to be railway articles, perhaps the solution is for Dicklyon to take a voluntary or community-sanctioned absence from railway articles. At the very least, I would suggest that he stop arguing with !voters and commenters who disagree with him in RMs. Simply to state one's case once is entirely sufficient. In any case, it does not seem that he has any real interest in railways aside from page-moves and article titles; I think it would therefore probably be in everyone's best interest for these things to be hashed out by those who edit those articles. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  We need something like a "Thank" button, but with opposite valence; sort of like the different kinds of waves that drivers use to communicate positive and negative reactions to each other. So anyway, !thanks for your opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

^^^ Y'all got that he just obliquely flipped-the-bird at Softlavender, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience WP:BLUDGEON (a widely-accepted essay, but an essay nonetheless) applies to Survey sections and discourages replying to every opposition !vote. The response is to cite BLUDGEON, not to ban a user from the topic area. In any case, Dicklyon is doing no more of that than a couple of other editors, as far as I can see, and his replies in Survey sections have not crossed the BLUDGEON line. As for Discussion sections, what are they for if not discussion? Dicklyon is not being combative or argumentative in RMs.
  I further disagree that editors interested in railways are the only ones who should be involved with punctuation in article titles of railway articles, considering that the gist of the argument posited by Dicklyon and others is that we should avoid specialized usage in titles. I would be interested to read p or g supporting your position on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a series of similar issues: United Kingdom, British vs American spelling, capitalization etc. In these ideological war-zones editors choose a POV and proceed into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing of articles that they have never edited before, nor will they ever edit again. I believe this "off topic" editing of articles creates a great deal of conflict among editors, they then end up here at ANI. I would love to see a guideline/policy that would discourage this "single purpose" behavior, even if it seems to be supported by WP:MOS Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've read though the above and, at the risk of brickbats thrown my way, find there's no concrete, actionable proposal being put forth, let alone consensus for such a proposal. A solo admin cannot (or should not) impose sanctions/warnings in such a situation so either concrete proposals should be presented or this topic should be closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose that OP Andy Dingley be trouted for bringing his content dispute to ANI and falsely accusing me of calling another editor a liar. Or just close it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Unilateral user talk page bans

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

---

Wow, what a string! But I'd like to make one minor proposal as a start to sorting it out.

Whatever the background, the request from User:Kevjonesin to Dicklyon to effectively topic-ban him from his user talk page [36] was out of order IMO.

All Wikipedia pages belong to the whole community, and there are even several stages of WP:dispute resolution which oblige a user to use another user's talk page... including and obviously, ANI itself.

There are instances where it's appropriate to topic ban a user from a particular user talk page, to control harrassing in particular, but such a ban cannot be unilaterally imposed by a user, they must go through the appropriate channels. This should be quite clearly stated for the benefit of Kevjonesin and any other user tempted to follow their example. Andrewa (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, that's not exactly what happens in practice here. Editors regularly ask/tell other editors to "stay off their talk page" and that request/demand is usually honored. If it isn't, and the matter comes up at ANI, then the requesting editor can point to the posts as harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's a request and is honoured, agree there is no problem. I myself have had such requests made to me, and have honoured them, in order to de-escalate the situation... generally but not always successfully. My concern is that if it's a demand, as seems the case here, and we approve it, then this prevents access to DR and ANI. Don't you see that as a problem? Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Not really as that's usually handled in one of two ways. Either the "banned" editor includes a request with the ANI/DR post that someone else make the notification or they go ahead and post the notification themselves, adding something like, "I am required by x process to post this on your talk page." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine if it's understood, and perhaps it is commonsense. And I certainly would not be prevented from using ANI or DR by such tactics, I'd post to their talk page anyway rather than violate the very clear procedures we have, expecting to be reverted (perhaps even politely inviting it) and then posting a diff of that reversion in the appropriate place. But if another user were to raise an issue at ANI and supply a diff explaining why they had not raised it on the user's talk page, I'd regard that as acceptable and would myself then notify the affected user on their talk page and regard all boxes as then ticked, despite a technical violation of procedures.

I seriously question whether that's the best way to do it. Far simpler IMO to affirm the principle that the community owns all pages, and that this at the very least allows ANI etc procedures to be followed, and this overrules any unilateral demand. Most users of ANI etc are not ANI regulars, and we want to make things as clear and easy for them as possible. But if we have rough consensus here on another way things should happen in practice, so be it.

And to that end, does anyone else have an opinion? Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.

Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
Yes, I have an opinion ... and so does Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages:

"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request"

Also, Andrewa, you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand with User:Dicklyon and myself. Namely that he chose to call me an 'asshole' in our very first interaction and has continued to refer back to such in following interactions rather than offer any apology or even agree to leave me alone in the future. As I see it, that Dicklyon and Checkingfax are not presently this very moment harassing my page likely has much more to do with pragmatic response to the fact that we're currently discussing the issue here at WP:ANI than it does with any sort of moral change of heart on their part. I can't think of any instance in this where they've shown any sort of contrition or self awareness of having overstepped the bounds of civility and such. Checkingfax is still arguing for his right to determine the content of my talkpage and Dicklyon is still making backhanded slurs at others. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s.— I may come back and add citation links to the above at some point.

p.p.s.— Why is this discussion taking place as a subsection of "#Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors" rather than "#Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries"?

p.p.p.s.— BTW, I'm on record stating my awareness that no one technically 'owns' there namespace on en.Wikipedia.

• [note: I'm aware my oversight of the User:Kevjonesin namespace is technically a privilege extended by Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and to some extent the Wikimedia community at large rather than true 'ownership' per se; however, so far as I'm aware it's a matter of both custom and policy/guidelines to extend fairly broad authority to editors over their own user namespace excepting instances where other explicitly stated policy may supersede. At this time I feel inclined to exercise the authority I've been given, such as it is, rather than risk further erosion by rude indifference. I may eventually be open to considering written requests for future changes to be made with the understanding that such may only be implemented either by me or in some manner having received my explicit personal approval, in advance, on a case-by-case basis.]

source of preceding quote

While no one technically 'owns' their user namespace (except perhaps User:Jimbo Wales) tradition and guidelines generally grant users the prerogative of fairly broad discretionary authority over such[37][38][39] and use of possessive terminology like 'my/your talkpage', 'my/your userpage', and 'my/your sandbox' in normal parlance amongst the community seems to reinforce such.

source of preceding quote

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, regarding:

User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.

Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I endorse the idea of having a standardized notification template for such. I think it might help make things clear and unambiguous to recipients. I suggest that having such link to relevant guidelines and/or other elaboration elsewhere might be helpful. Perhaps some sort of summary subsection might be provided on the template's page so as to offer further explanation and assorted relevant guideline links and quotes in one centralized place. Stuff seen as relevant both to those who might use such a template and those who might receive it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: One of the benefits of the current practice is that it is informal. No heading to ANI to increase drama, no boilerplate templates that further annoy the editor being banned, just a personalized note along the lines of, "hey, stay off my talk page". WP:NOBAN does address many of your concerns: "although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was forgetting WP:NOBAN, good point. But I think that it supports what I was saying before.

I have a general notice on my own user talk page that says in part Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.) On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!

But that doesn't (I hope) hint at the sort of confrontation and even enforcement that, to me, seemed to be the intent of this edit. I still think that such (purported) bans are unhelpful, contrary to guidelines, and should be discouraged. Whether by a suggested template or other means, I don't really care.

Agree that we need to work towards minimising drama. By the time that notice was posted, that horse had bolted IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to amicably agree to somewhat disagree on how much talk page bans should be discouraged. I agree they shouldn't be used at a drop of a hat, or even when volatile, passionate discussions are going on, but I don't believe they're often abused and need to be more regulated. The editors involved will still likely have to interact on article talk pages but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace" ... ' Amen ' ;-) --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also I think relevant that in this particular case, the edits in question were not addition of material, but removal of signed material that the the signatory didn't want there. I'm not sure that guidelines cover this adequately, unless the material is posted for the purposes of attack. But it seems to me polite to respect such requests. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, again I feel you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand ... the user making the request is indefinitely banned from editing en.Wikipedia and was in effect attempting to do so anyway via proxies. No request was presented to me in advance of unilateral action by others in namespace which guidelines state as having been deemed by the community to be under a wide latitude of my personal discretion (barring some explicit policy violation on my part). I violated no policy and was seeking in good faith to abide by and exercise prerogatives which guidelines state are to be afforded to me by custom (unless some administrative action, policy violation, or such requires the prerogative to be superseded).

The usernamespace is recognized in guidelines as being in some ways unique from other namespace and variations of customs and policy are in place which reflect such. For instance policy states that by default I am not to be viewed as engaging in edit warring when reverting others in the user namespace allowed to me. Others however do not get such latitude there, and I would even argue that when editing in another's personal namespace a 1RR (or 0RR) standard rather than a 3RR standard would be appropriate for judging behavior because the namespace holder is known to hold special privilege by default. Hence making unapproved reverts by others inherently contentious and pointless.

And Checkingfax did explicitly make three reversions of the same edit (to a closed discussion in 'my' User:Kevjonesin namespace) ... That only two of the reverts fell within 24 hours may well have more to do with the fact I was off wiki for a few days before correcting the first one than it does with any cognitive discretion on Checkingfax's part. In fact, my first impulse was to present my case to the edit warring tribunal rather than here, but as there were/are also issues of personal attacks, off site banned user influence, disregard of userspace prerogatives, and collusion at play in addition to combative reverts I chose to present my case here thinking it a more appropriate venue for a multi-faceted case. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Next time you'll be more aware that complaining at a noticeboard about a problem you could have easily resolved is just creating extra drama, and not likely to get you a lot of sympathy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as quite disingenuous (or clueless, take you pick) coming from someone who could have avoided being named in the dispute by 'a.' not calling me an 'asshole' and reverting valid user talkpage content in the first place[40] ... and 'b.' could have accepted my offer to engage in discussion on his talkpage[41] rather than refer me back the summary[42] where he called me an 'asshole'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we can keep it up, and remind everyone what I called you and how little you have done to change my opinion. By the way, not that it excuses my language, but when I said you were being one, as opposed to are one, with "cut it out", I meant that it was a transient state under your control; about your behavior, not you. Maybe that subtle distinction was lost in the noise. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I encourage people to read your block log and decide for themselves what your opinion is worth. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's level six again (see image at left). Suggest cool it. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I admit I had not noticed that the user in question was banned, good point. I still think it would be better to politely remove the material they wanted removed. If it's needed to substantiate their crimes against Wikipedia, archive it by all means. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, if anyone had seen fit to politely ask me, I might have. But they didn't. Instead, multiple attempts were made to force changes upon the user namespace assigned to me. Namespace which is held as being in some ways unique by both Wiki custom and community guidelines. Namespace wherein the user whose name it falls under is traditionally and as a matter of policy to be given wide personal latitude barring cases where some explicit circumstances overrides such. Has such an overriding circumstance occurred? If so please point it out to me; otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would consider rising to the defense of an editor in good standing who has been confronted by an editor with an established history of contentious editing.

Please consider that Dicklyon, a user with an explicit history of edit warring, has stated that he came to my page in response to having seen my edit warring warning on Checkinfax's talkpage.[43][44] Let that sink in a second ... He was explicitly and self admittedly aware that he was making a contentious edit. Yes? When he reverted my good faith policy compliant content attribution which had been placed within the user namespace assigned to me and topped it off with an insulting edit summary he was self-admittedly explicitly aware that by doing so he was continuing an ongoing edit war, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are faults on both sides IMO, and I'm forming the opinion that no admin action is called for, other than a warning to both sides.

But I may be a lone voice in criticising you, and if so I'll accept that as consensus against me, and still go with a warning to Dicklyon. But they at least have shown some willingness to take responsibility for their unhelpful actions.

Our only aim here is to improve Wikipedia. I know it is difficult to respond politely and constructively when others are being downright rude. I've had a bit of it myself here, and the last time I myself raised an issue here at ANI of being personally attacked, two non-admins chimed in and said it was clearly attack and a warning at least was warranted, but there is no evidence that any other admin even looked at it before it was auto-archived. No warning was given, and the perpetrators subsequently succeeded in achieving the "no consensus" result that they were seeking, and we will never know how much their disruptive tactics helped in that. That was hard. But the world did not end.

You've made your case. Leave it to others to assess it, but please also look at what you might do better. And have a good look at Graham's pyramid above for a start. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't even the right section for Kevjonesin to be making any kind of case; he – and you – just injected a lot of noise into an otherwise dormant discussion unrelated to him, so you both could say something bad about me and hope it would hurt me. More behavior of the sort I originally asked him to cut out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, but your allegation on my motives is both false and baseless. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, good; I'm glad to be wrong on that point. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again at how you started this section, it does almost look like you were trying to defend me; though it would have worked a lot better to do nothing, instead calling attention to K's rants and inviting more. Anyway, sorry I lumped you in there on noticing that you started the section; I was too hasty. Also note that I posted to K's user talk page exactly once; whether I ever do again probably won't have much to do with his dis-invitation, but so far I have not gone against his request. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at it, the more it looks like you made a simple blunder and started this subsection in the wrong section. Maybe you want to move it into the section where K is complaining about me and Checkingfax instead of here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And it's easy to see how you made that mistake, following on the heels of K's bird post, now that I look. It's been a mess; let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It could have gone in either section. In hindsight, yes, it might have been better in the other, but I don't think we can fix that now, and again in hindsight I don't think it would have achieved any more there than it has here. It went here because I thought this was the more important of the two closely related discussions. It clearly didn't have any chance of helping in either. I need to learn from that, and I'm still wondering exactly what I have learned!

The intention was not to defend you, or to attack you. The intention was to start to untangle a very complex discussion by suggesting a decision on an issue that I found simple and straightforward and expected to go to a quick consensus.

I was quite wrong, obviously. I still think Wikipedia is the poorer for not affirming that nobody here owns even their own user page, let alone their user talk page, which I thought was a simple, basic, profound and very valuable principle, and which could and should avoid much of the wrangling above (in both sections) if we had kept it, but there you go. It's not the end of the world. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, no big deal, though the discussion you were trying to untangle was not the one here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

They seem tangled together to me... even before i arrived, that is. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, I noticed the big pink header on your talkpage and it struck me that you'd brought up some great points:

Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.)

On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!

[preceding passage quoted from User_talk:Andrewa; emphasis retained from the original]

Excellent food-for-thought, brother man. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Neal would you be so kind as to consider closing this, "Unilateral user talk page bans" subsection? I think fair argument might be made that it serves more as a satellite of the recently closed "Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries" section than it does as a truly affiliated subsection of "Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors". Please give the proposal some consideration. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a "satellite"; or perhaps an asteroid or meteor. Time to close; the whole thing, too, that would have archived by now without K's interjection. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Although I think a formal close is better than just allowing it to auto-archive. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, any modifications to current practices should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines or WP:VPR, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree.

Not sure whether it's worth raising there. It seems to me at least possible that this is an undiscussed change to what was once long-established practice, but I could be wrong, and such things do occur over time.

Yes, those are two good places to discuss this one further, and this is not. We seem to have a sort of consensus of silence here supporting your view on it. I accept that. Thanks for your input. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Not notifying users about their pages being deleted

Today I received a request on my talk page to undelete a page which I had moved back to Draft. They couldn't find it at all, and when I checked their contribs I saw it had been deleted. SwisterTwister was the user who added the CSD tags, but never notified them, so I can understand their confusion.

This is not the first time this has happened. A lack of notifying the creator for a set of AFDs resulted in this rather exhausting ANI thread. In it were several admonishments for lack of notification when a page was AFD'd. I've left him a couple of notes to this effect, to no avail.

My main concern is the prolific rate of editing in which ST performs. Just in the last month, he has started 36 AFDs, 81 MFDs, 3 SPI cases ([45]), and at least 500 CSDs without a single user talk notification.

I'm not concerned with whether he has been right or wrong in his nominations, but the fact that there are at least 600 users (in the last month alone!) who might have no idea why their page simply disappeared. As a helper in the IRC channel, I see countless people coming in asking how they can locate their draft; if they don't remember the exact title and/or it's been deleted, we can't always help them. His actions are incredibly BITEy, they cause users (usually copyvio offenders) to repeat their mistakes in the future, and it discourage editors from continuing to help out at Wikipedia. I know the XFD/CSD guidelines use "may" and "should" (though the {{db-g12}} template says "ensure they were notified"), but for someone who has such a tremendous impact on new users I think an exception should be made.

The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages; it means zero extra effort on his part, since the script will automatically notify the user in question. It also means the incredibly vague nomination statements ("N", "None of this suggests a notable article", "(C)" or just nothing at all), will be replaced with something useful. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Both WP:AFD and WP:CSD explicitly say it should be done / is considered standard practice, so imho those not doing it should have good reasons why not. Asking this user (and others) to use a script that both automates tagging and notifying users seems like a sensible idea. In the long run, we probably should consider making notifying users a rule. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To add something else here, I've long been concerned that ST seems to ignore the vast majority of news users who post on his talk page, asking genuine questions about how to improve their declined articles. I would rather he reviewed half the articles he does if it means he gets time to respond to those users who ask him questions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I was likewise concerned that SwisterTwister appeared to simply ignore the users asking questions on his user page, however after some investigation (and "watching" his talk page to ensure that this was a consistent pattern), he actually almost always replies with a comment on their AfC draft instead, presumably because they want to keep discussion all in one place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to make notification mandatory, then the CSD language needs to be changed. "There is strong consensus", "you can", "suggested template" are not the wording you need for that. Look at the editnotice on this page "You must notify the user on their talk page" -- that's the kind of language that's needed. Change the language to make it mandatory, but don't blame editors if they chose not to do something that isn't required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I proposed such a change for WP:CSD at its talk page. Funny how for more than a decade this was not really a problem since almost all NP patrollers used tools that automated such notifications. I think it's the first time I heard about a user not doing so on such a large scale. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Twinkle also gives the option of not notifying users, Other than "Either notify users or face a block" I can't think of any better options - Clearly new users are confused and clearly this user has no intention of notifying other users so as I said I see no better alternative. –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notifying users has always been a "suggestion", not a policy, and WP:Perennial proposals explicitly states this. There has never been a solidified consensus to make it a policy because it's a question of who can be notified, at times, it could be a now-banned user or a CU-confirmed sock, therefore there's no need. For example, such bot-spam accounts I find daily, I never notify because it's all clear unnecessary server-logging, a bot-spam account is not going to know the difference of what we as an encyclopedia accept. There's no serious need for admin intervention here because there have been no policy violations. As it is, any attention to my deleted contribs will find over 80% of it is where the user had no intentions at all because it was simply so blatant. As for the SPIs, I notified at least one of them, but the others were not, simply because they were so obvious, such as Scorpion293's of which was confirmed as a paid puppeteer. Anyone who asked why it was deleted had not noticed the deletion log located in their same article, which either states "Unambiguous advertising" or "Copyviolation", consisting of a link then to our policies. Making anything of it is clear WP:BUREACRACY. As for the MfD nominations, they repeatedly submitted so often, they never showed they understood our policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• But why not do it anyway? It is courteous and, with Twinkle, takes no time at all. The impression otherwise is that you are flying under the radar. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (I do agree re: SPI, though. I rarely notify for those, mainly because of the BEANS thing.) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would notify if there was a reasonable chance the user showed they understood our policies, but for example, about the AfC Drafts, some of the recent ones were involving nearly 10 or 11 resubmissions, so there's no convincing signs they will listen to a deletion notification after 11 times. When the user shows they understand, either in a talk page message or at the Draft, I will then comment at the Draft and state the concerns again, and if they're refused, that's why I nominate for deletion. Also, WP:Perennial proposals itself, stated that all users should place articles of interest in either their watchlist or similar list. Also, nearly every case of MfD-nominated, showed the user came back to the Draft and noticed the deletion, put aside the ones who were CU-blocked or spam-banned. I used to frequently notify users each time, but after time, it seemed it was simply no use if they simply restarted their campaigns again, thus wasting not only my time, but the server time and space. For example, with Scorpion293, I opened his SPI after his comments, simply to see what the comments would be, or else I would've simply gone to SPI in the first place, without notification. I've found no history where such a "Users absolutely must be notified" was ever close to being a fundamental WP pillar. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Server space isn't an issue. I doubt that server time is, either. The rest is irrelevant if you're mostly dealing with new contributors. You can't expect them to know about watchlists, perennial proposals or anything else like that. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Considering the number of times other editors have complained here about your 'work flow' and the very large number of nominations/patrols you make, it would be advisable for you to follow best practices rather than the rules don't require it and I don't feel like it. Things that are not issues when they are done a few times can often become problematic when they are done hundreds or thousands of times a week. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, to add to my comment earlier, the repeated "N", "None of this suggests a notable article" (which actually explains itself), is because I especially them in speedy deletions, which mean they'll be deleted quickly. Also, N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means. Anyone of this would also follow the commonly used "Ce" (for copyediting), "sp" (spelling), etc. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means - I have never seen another user use a single-letter designation to denote that they have nominated a page for deletion. Sure, I've seen "AFD" but never "N". It is far from obvious. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, either. But, in any event, the point about newbies applies again. If you know you're dealing with them then you have to make allowances. We probably all should, all the time, but we definitely should not all the time. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not good for new editor retention (although most of the people who have not received a notification are either spamming or are paid editors). The use of useless edit summaries by SwisterTwister is unhelpful, that's a behavioural issue we can insist they remedy whilst the failure to notify is unhelpful but BMK probably has it right when he says it's optional and ST is technically doing nothing wrong by not making use of the option.
  I'm far more concerned by Sam Walton's concerns, the lack of notifications could well be a symptom of hurried, rushed reviews. The failure to respond satisfactorily to queries from editors about reviews and deletions is a major concern.
  I'd hope ST would therefore agree willingly to use descriptive edit summaries, to leaving more notifications and above all, to provide far more detailed responses to those asking questions. Nick (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: as per above, SwisterTwister appears to leave comments back at the AfC draft instead of on his talk page, so the appearance of a lack of response to questions (at least re. AfC drafts) is merely a facade- I noticed this as an AfC reviewer myself, as there would seemingly be random comments from SwisterTwister across a wide range of AfC drafts that weren't linked to a review, some investigation showed that these were actually in response to comments left on his talk page. It might perhaps be confusing for editors checking for a response on his talk page rather than their draft, but he is responding, at least to questions about AfC drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is where I get a little confused about this entire issue, Jcc. ST is perfectly happy to use AFCH for editing/reviewing drafts, but cannot/will not use Twinkle to notify users that their pages are being nominated for deletion? As far as scripts go, it's just as easy to use one as it is the other (moreso, given that with Twinkle you don't have to edit the AFD log directly). As mentioned by someone else, there are a ton of upsides, and almost no downsides. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's rude not to notify page creators that their article has been nominated for deletion, and to purposely do so is the opposite of collaborative. It's happened to me, and when I complained to the nominating editor, they self-righteously woofed that it's not required by policy. Sad that we would need such a basic social courtesy to be mandated by a written policy. What a great way to drive off contributors. - MrX 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Also, although I have never maintained a CSD or PROD log and I have no plans to because it's tedious, I will note that over 3/4 of my PRODs recently alone have been confirmed advertisements by either long-ago paid advertisers or recently CU-banned ones (given it's damaging enough keeping such paid spam for long here), so our policies would apply WP:RBI in it alone, given any notifications would only mean harboring attention. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You're grasping at straws now. And if you really wanted to keep a log then Twinkle can do it for you (optional). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While (again) I am not calling into question your accuracy with page deletion notices, WP:RBI only deals with obvious vandalism, so poorly-written or non-GNG pages don't meet this criteria. Additionally, since you keep no logs, do not notify the user, and you use pretty much the same PROD notice every time, I find it very hard to believe that you know for a fact that 75% of the PROD/CSDs you hand out are from verified socks and/or blocked paid editors. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a fact because both my now deleted contribs and the PROD that are currently still pending and standing are in fact from paid contributions, either shown from their contributions or by their own words. I'll even note the fact it was a paid advertisement in the PROD itself, making it easier to see. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realize paid editing is allowed (provided adequate disclosure), right? That doesn't make them automatically exempt from being notified that their work has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, all users had specifically not confessed their COI payment and subsequently were banned (all last 3 cases had enough attention confirming this was the solution) and also CU-puppeting, thus there's no use if they're going to blatantly violate our policies when they know it. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Would you please start notifying users when you nominate their articles for deletion? It's a widely-accepted practice that costs you nothing and it will have a net positive benefit to the project. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this modest request.- MrX 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI seriously doubt any admin is going to act on this thread. The reason is simple: while notifications are considered a best practice that are not and never have been required. We might prefer that this user use them more often, but they don't have to, any more than they have to use edit summaries. The only way this can be something enforceable is if someone proposes a formal restriction requiring this user to notify, and that proposal receives sufficient support from the community to become an enforceable editing restriction. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this, but as it stands right now it's the only way anyone can be forced to do notifications. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping they might bow to the morality of the point, especially given they haven't really got a decent reason not to do so. It seems, however, like that was a vain hope. I'll stop using edit summaries from now on. ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries are also not required but I remember an ANI case a month or so ago where someone was brought here because he didn't use summaries and the end result was that he was forced to use edit summaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does potentially set a dangerous precedent when we tell one of our most prolific editors that they don't have to follow best practices. Sitush is making a POINT, but what if everyone who interacts with ST decides not to add edit summaries or notify users? I hope, to echo Sitush, that ST realizes that best practices are put in place for a reason, and the handful of outliers which he's mentioned are not the primary purpose of the notifications, but it's for everyone who has complained to one editor or another about their drat simply disappearing into thin air. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Sir Joseph: I have located the thread where a user was required to use clearer edit summaries.

There seems to be some consensus growing in this discussion that never notifying a user is more harmful than occasionally notifying a blocked sock. It's not like SwisterTwister has to bend over backwards to notify users - just install Twinkle! I still haven't seen a reason given as to why he doesn't use it, yet is happy to use AFCH for draft reviewing (so it's not an "I hate scripts" thing). Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all arguing that this isn't a real issue, but you can't expect admins to suddenly enforce a policy that doesn't actually exist. So, again, what would be needed would be either to change the policy, (which is being tried at theis very moment at WT:CSD) or propose an editing restriction on this particular user and try and get consensus for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, are you saying I should formally start a "Proposal", or would an uninvolved admin willing to close be able to read through the concerns and (if consensus) place an editing restriction/specification? Because the latter is definitely my position on the matter, and the reason I started this thread (The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages). Primefac (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So far the only consensus I can see here is that ST should probably be notifying in many cases where the currently do not, I do not see anything more specific than that, so yes, if you want any actual action on this I would again suggest that a formal proposal for a logged editing restriction would be the way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Beeblebrox 100%. For myself I add: Swister Twister should be encouraged to clearly explain his deletion nominations, namely with short but descriptive edit summaries, as that is good collaboration practice - with all of us, not just the editors who might be not receptive to comments. As to notifying users I see nothing wrong. (disclaimer: I rarely do any deletion nominations, but when I do I even more rarely notify users) Quite simply, if notifying users should be mandatory, then it is a clear case for a technical solution, not a 'social' solution. It should not be a editor to laboriously notify editors, it should be a automated notification sent to (almost) all article editors and watchers (or something along that line). Nabla (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a technical solution called Twinkle. As an admin, you absolutely should be notifying users if you nominate their articles for deletion. It's not laborious. - MrX 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I will agree with the other editors. I see no reason why anyone should complete an AFD, a complicated process, other than by using Twinkle, which takes care of all of the steps. When Twinkle is used, the default is to notify the creator. Just use Twinkle and notify the article creator (even if they are a sockpuppet). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, do you actually have any reasonable objections to using Twinkle? For example. I have no idea how well it works on mobile devices and whether or not that is your preferred means of editing. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX:, Twinkle is not part of MediaWiki, when I mean technical I mean as part of the main software, like in having a "delete" button, no options, that's it, for everyone. @Robert McClenon: It works fine that way since 2004 or so :-) I do so very few nominations it is not much work, conversely, as it IS some work, it keeps me from doing more nominations. Also, I like to know my edits... I think I gave it a try once long ago and it felt weird, to me it is not "the wiki way". Also, the article creator does not have any special ownership, if anyone, the ones that should be warned are the ones watching it. @Sitush: I am not Swister Twister ;-) Nabla (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Notification isn't required. You can call it polite if you want, but it's not required. If we want to make it a requirement, change the policy. Explain in the edit summary? Why? If there is a AfD, the reason is there. If it's a CSD, the reason is in the category used. In my view, ST does more good for the project in getting rid of articles that don't belong than alleged harm by hurting the feelings of some theoretical newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• D'uh. But they're unlikely to see the AfD or CSD. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niteshift36, these aren't theoretical newbies. As mentioned in my OP, and as I've seen many times on IRC, there are many users who are confused and/or angry about their page being deleted with no notice given; their pages just vanish. Now, clearly it's not entirely SwisterTwister's fault, but due to his editing practices there is probably a larger number of well-meaning new editors who have quit because their hard work has been deleted with no warning. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the responses talk about what amount to theoretical newbies. Granted, there may be a few you can actually show, but much of this is about people who might be effected. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Here's how I handle the problem: before deleting an article/draft, I check and see who nominated it for speedy deletion. If it's SwisterTwister, I notify the page creator myself instead of performing the deletion. That way, the contributor gets at least some time to act. It's a waste of admin time to have to do this, but I'm not comfortable with deleting in cases where the page creator has not been notified. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great. So SwisterTwister worries about wasting server time and space but we have an admin having to waste time trying to do "the right thing". And admin time is, I think, in much shorter supply. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not an optimal solution, but it also isn't the first time I've noticed that Dianaa has more patience than I do. I do usually check the creator's talk page after I delete something, and if there is no notification there I will usually drop the appropriate warning or notice with twinkle. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In May 2016, I asked SwisterTwister to notify creators while nominating articles for any form of deletion, but they did not bother responding to my note or start notifying. Now if I see an article nominated by SwisterTwister I just don't act on it, I let another admin decide. Sadly, this behavior is a nuisance and should be stopped. —SpacemanSpiff —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I've asked him about that multiple times on IRC, but he's ignored me every time. It seems to me that he doesn't like criticism, which is understandable, but when many people are suggesting that you should do something, you should at least respond to them before you have an ANI made about you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to ease the extra work put in by admins, to notify users when their pages have been deleted, and to decrease the amount of work he has to do (by eliminating the need to actually edit the WP:AFD page directly). I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. I am specifically proposing Twinkle because ST has declared that their time is valuable and they cannot be bothered spending extra time notifying users (which is fair), and Twinkle does that automatically. This minimizes the BITE factor of not notifying the users, and aligns more with best practices as mentioned on all of the deletion venues instructions. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. There is literally no downside to ST using Twinkle instead of manually editing, and fixes many of the issues I've seen regarding their deletion-tagging practices. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, if we want it to be mandatory, make the changes in the process, not just imposed on a single editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment in which I hoped SwisterTwister would voluntarily agree to do this. This should also include the provision that he may not disable notifications in the Twinkle settings.- MrX 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support its not that big a deal to be expected to use Twinkle. If anything it makes ST's life easier. It will also hopefully save more ANI threads. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have been concerned about this for some time—the lack of notifying the creator, the lack of a useful edit summary, and the failure to respond to new users posting on ST's talk page. ST is a prolific AFC contributor, and for many new editors is the first face they see. This is a step in the right direction. Bradv 02:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I support SwisterTwister being obliged to notify in each case, whether via Twinkle or manually. In spite of notifications not being mandatory, it's the right and polite thing to do. This behaviour is likely costing us editors, and it's wasting the valuable time of others – either the admin who notifies on their behalf, or the Teahouse host or help page patroller who responds to the editor's query and has to try to figure out where the missing page went. SwisterTwister should not be obligated to use Twinkle, but if he does not, he needs to notify manually for each nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Adding: If he does his nominations manually, he needs to leave an informative edit summary when he places the deletion nomination on the article/draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Hopefully, they can do it using Twinkle but if there is some technical reason why that is not possible then I'm afraid it will just have to happen the hard way. I think my reasoning is clear enough from my prior comments in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because of; I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. That is plain and simply unacceptable. Editors choose which tools they want to use and which tools they do not want to use. You cannot force someone to use tools they don't want to use.
  Despite that, I agree that ST's approach is bordering on being disruptive; at least one admin has stated they take additional time solely when deal with ST's CSD's and another has stated that they avoid them wholesale. This is on top of the already mentioned BITEness of a newbie editor having their work deleted and not given even a simple notification. I do, however, think that notifications should never be mandatory (or even recommended) for G3, G5, especially G10 and, for obvious redundancy reasons, G7. So while I can support requiring ST to make notifications, these requirements would be limited to genuine attempts at contribution. So, if I was going to support this restriction it would need to be clear that notifications are only going to be required for contributions that were made in good faith.
  Furthermore it would need to be extremely clear that ST can decide for themselves how they are going to meet those requirements. I can't tell whether the TWINKLE part is meant to mandate or recommend - I read it as mandate initially Actually, that is the meat of the proposal, so it is definitely intended to mandate. Otherwise, forcing ST to notify the page creator at all times risks doing a lot of damage even if it would also do a lot of good. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So would you oppose if we just said ST had to notify by some means or another, rather than specifically by Twinkle? And, since we're supposed to assume good faith, what is the problem there? I've not got involved in past ANI reports about ST but this one really is at the limit. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, SwisterTwister has expressed a strong disinterest in taking more time out of their day to go to editor's talk pages and add notices manually. I took this into account when I made the proposal, because using Twinkle saves him time just as much as it saves admins like myself and Diannaa from having to verify that a G12 notice was actually given. If ST says he's willing to notify without using Twinkle, I'm all for it, but I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify myself here Sitush and Primefac; I agree that ST should notify good faith content contributors and indeed could support general enforcement of them doing so; just not for G3, 5, 7 (self-notificaton is dumb) and 10. However, while I can support making this mandatory, I cannot support telling them how to do it. It is one thing to say "you will notify article creators when you XFD their good faith work" and quite another to say "you will notify article creators using TWINKLE when you XFD their good faith work". So until the twinkle part is struck or clarified to be a recommendation only for ST's own benefit, I must oppose the measure in its entirety. Even without TWINKLE, I see no value in forcing them to notify attack page creators, vandals, and banned/blocked users and potentially see downsides to notifying them as well; edit-warring over the tag, creating new pages with similar content to "save" their work, spreading the vandalism to new pages, etc, etc. Editors can generally use their own heads to work out when a notification is needed and when it is not. That's why CSD "protocol" (I voted against the measure on the CSD talk page, hence why I am singling out CSD here) is to recommend notifications and not require them. Because ST isn't doing this, requiring them to do so to some extent is fine, but, not in its current form. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You make valid points regarding G5/7, and I can agree that there is little point in doing so (and no one would fault him for not notifying a G5 user). Unfortunately with no logs (and having no interest in trawling through deleted edit summaries), there is no way to see how many pages he nominates that are in those categories. I do know, however, that he nominates an awful lot of U5/A7/G11/G12 pages, which should always receive notifications (in addition to the 100+ XFD nominations made every month). While DENY and other all-caps shortcuts say we shouldn't feed the trolls, is it really that big a deal if a handful of talk pages get deletion notifications?

At the end of this, though, you've said your piece, and I respect that (I won't belabour the point any further). If consensus does follow your idea ("must inform, can do how he likes") I will support that; my main concern is just getting notifications out there. I just don't see it happening without Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've revised my vote somewhat to better reflect my concerns - mostly format and clarity. I was tempted to reduce to plain oppose, but, I read your proposal again and I have to stick with strong oppose. The meat of the proposal is getting ST to use twinkle which does notifications immediately. That has its benefits, but, it crosses the line of what can and should be done. Thanks for your replies and explanations. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support a restriction of having to notify page creators when nominating an article for deletion (any type) but I'm not overly keen on forcing them to use Twinkle. A few months back I'd suggested to SwisterTwister that they decide when a notification may not be necessary, they have shown that they aren't able to do that. Therefore, a restriction like this is necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose while I think he should notify, if it's currently not required then what authority do we have to single him out? If you want it required then change policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:RESTRICT and a recent precedent re: edit summaries. Have you read the thread in its entirety? -Sitush (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

He singled himself out by his refusal to follow the basic process that virtually every one else follows. The authority comes from our standing as a self-governed community.- MrX 02:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he is doing is against policy. If you want notifications to be mandatory, then make it mandatory. I do think he's wrong for not doing it, and when I nominate I use Twinkle, but to punish someone for following the rule is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Contra Niteshift36 and Sir Joseph, we don't need new policy (instruction creep) since there is no recurrent issue except with this editor. As MrX says, he singled himself out, so a singular remedy (wp:restrict) is perfectly valid. There may be occasional instances where it's better to not notify, so it's fine to leave an opening for that. But ST seems to be trying to game the system and turn "occasional" into "always". Per NOTBURO we shouldn't go along with exploiting loopholes like that. ST doesn't seem to be able to accept "occasional" so the alternative that should apply to him is not "always" but "never". 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree that it is creep. That is exactly why I opposed the proposal to make it mandatory at the CSD talk page. Requiring this individual editor to do something not required by policy is essentially process creep. The effect is the same in the end. So if it is to be required for him, just require it for everyone. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm saying the opposite: it's instruction creep to dictate a universal approach to something that most editors can handle by situational judgment and discretion. If some particular editor is found to repeatedly abuse their discretion, the remedy is restrict that editor, not hobble the other editors who don't have that problem. See also WP:CIR. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• We both recognize that requiring it would be creep. I disagree with the notion of singling him out for this "requirement".Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:CSD: "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed prior thereto). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).". —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand that Spiff, but the key word there is "should" be warned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• A must would require "all", but "should" would include most, and I'm mostly concerned about A7s, G12s where the creators are ill informed newbies (this is also applicable to some G11s). They are the ones who need a notification explaining why their article was deleted or is likely to be. Many people react differently, some run away when there's no explanation, some create socks to do the same thing and some do read the explanations and reform. There's one editor whose early contributions I deleted and subsequently short term blocked for copyvios, but they read the notifications and reformed themselves and are a prolific contributor to audited content now. I don't have any problems with no G5 notifications or even in the case of extreme spam, but as I requested ST last year, the A criteria deletions need some sort of explanation for newbies. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I have it right, there's SHOULD in something like the sense of RFC 2119 (they always write it in caps like that) and you want to change it to MUST. I don't see a need for that since we've done ok with SHOULD almost all the time. It's completely normal to single someone out for restrictions if they have trouble in an area where other people find their way ok. The alternative is to constrain everyone, when only the one person has exhibited a problem. I'm sympathetic with ST about spammers etc., but if it's inconveniencing other editors who find themselves placing notices out of felt duty to other humans, then we have to say ST's approach isn't workable. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support  SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was clear above who I notified, which are the people who understand how WP works, there's no sensibility in notifying the people who will sock and continue advertising hence those are not people who are "cooperating", my last PRODs an hour ago show the same persistent paid advertising we've encountered so heavily recently. For example, I was especially not going to notify the now-banned user Kavdiamanju after their spam campaigns. If it wasn't that I purposely watch for the robo-spam, there wouldn't be any other basis for putting such quick words. Also, as for the "N", anyone who edited that article would naturally look into it and especially once they see a "deletion template", which seems to always be the case when it's a still active user. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you've got other editors following you around to clean up after you, it's obvious that your judgment is being found wanting; and making frequent edits that trigger such interventions is disruptive by definition. So you're being asked to cut it out, or as the case may be, told to cut it out. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you logged in to your account? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly because they don't have an account; they've been a relatively active IP editor for several months now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This bickering is not helpful - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC) (nac)

@Mr rnddude: I think "misleading, counterproductive and ill-informed" is a very kind and slightly euphemistic description of your contributions on WP:ANI (not to mention my talkpage). I do not think you are intentionally misleading people; I think you post these comments without doing any research. The result is that you cause drama and mislead others. Maybe it is best if you don't post at WP:ANI, and stay away from other people's drama. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC) The Quixotic Potato ... Please don't project your issues onto me. Your above posts are irrelevant to the substance of this thread. They are devoid of meaningful discourse and are currently uselss. Even if you are correct about the IP which seems extremely far fetched given no evidence. Furthermore, the IP has made exactly one dozen comments on this page alone. Your statement stands as an accusation without base. As for your talk page ... I am disheartened to hear that you have learned nothing from that experience. It is your own posts you should worry about and in fact I implore you to do so. You came here explicitly to start drama on a entirely dramaless thread. If you want a look at unproductive (and unpleasant) then please review both of your comments here, then review all of mine. I will repeat it in explicit terms; if you make an accusation bring evidence. I told you this unequivocally last time, when you received a two week block, and you have summarily ignored it. I note you read my particularly long post on your talk page. You seem to have taken substantive issue with it, indeed you seem to have held a grudge for a month (nearly two) if you're bringing it up now. If you have issues about it User talk:Mr rnddude is open as always to anyone for anything. (I apologize for the dual ping, this is as a result of my comment being deleted in an unrelated edit and now restored). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Stop digging. If you would understand the situation then you would apologize to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC) You know, that might be the case The Quixotic Potato - unlikely though, and you're deep underground if I am digging. However, I cannot understand the situation unless you give me something to work from that might explain it. My initial comment was an opportunity to expand upon what you said and bring something I could look at (or rather another editor or admin could look at) and then deal with. Not to swing an attack round at me. I have seen the above IP comment on different AN/I threads and even an arbcom case that I am tangentially aware of - I recognized the IP from the arbcom case personally and only just noticed them lurking in other threads. From my perspective you are slinging an accusation without evidence, if several admins, an entire arbcom panel, CU's and Oversighters haven't noticed anything the least bit suspicious over the course of three months, then you must concede that it might look odd if somebody came in guns blazing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC) It is offtopic here, and probably difficult to explain over the internet. Communication that is limited to text has disadvantages. But I am 100% sure that we would understand eachother better if we could talk IRL over a cup of tea. BTW there is a big difference between an accusation and a question from someone who is curious. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seems like a reasonable request to solve this problem, which is very real. If SwisterTwister cannot be induced to notify in any other way, and I do believe not leaving notifications is a serious matter, this makes it easy for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support and if SwisterTwister does not want to use twinkle, an alternative is to manually notify the people involved. Inexperienced people may get away with not notifying, but ST is experienced. Some kinds of pages do not need notifications, such as G7 ot G6, however prod, G13, A7, A1, A3, AFDs should all be nominated for sure. It is helpful for other editors to see the notifications on the person's talk page too as it assists in undeletion or seeing problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not care whether they use Twinkle or do it manually (so long as the edit summary is at least marginally informative), but in general they have to notify people that their articles might be deleted. It's just common sense. I don't see a problem with carving out an exception for G5s and G7s, however. /wiae 🎄 12:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because he doesn't use Twinkle and shouldn't be forced to do so. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Perhaps this proposal should be re-phrased to state that ST must notify people manually each time instead. Or use Twinkle. First Light (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support And in reply to the above - this is like the the 5th deletion related complaint about ST. If they would just follow common convention and basic courtesy, there would not be a need. So frankly a restriction that allows them to keep doing what they want to do without in fact 'restricting' them at all seems quite fair. At this point I no longer have any good faith given the ongoing issues and assume they just a)want their nominations to fly under the radar, and b)have no intention of abiding by community norms. Again a restriction that forces them to follow that without stopping their work is really not a burden. If it *is* a burden to them to use basic courtesy in their editing, well the next option is an outright ban from those actions they cant seem to do without pissing people off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common practice, courtesy, so easy to do with Twinkle, don't bite the newcomers, new editor retention, transparency, just for starters. First Light (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors are free to use whatever tools they like, and use their discretion on notification. For example, you should not notify the author on a G10, as that increases the likelihood that the defamatory material will be reposted. Others have already mentioned other criteria where notification may be redundant or harmful. SwisterTwister should be encouraged to use clearer edit summaries, and default to a notification when it is unclear, but this is a blunt solution, which is not acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Blunt solutions are used when editors are unwilling to follow reasonable alternatives. People have 'encouraged' ST plenty of times now. Its not had any noticeable effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to what? Following the rule? If you want people to be required to notify then make the policy change. As it stands now, you are punishing someone for following the rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A rule such as WP:CONSENSUS ? - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If a rule is not working for us, it's okay to ignore it. This is one of the five pillars even. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::Golly gee, then let's throw out all rules and determine how to proceed by mob rule at ANI, shall we? This is a preposterous solution. If you want notifications so badly, then change the policy, which I will be in favor of. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the interesting things about the opposers here. They're objecting on BURO grounds but actually do think ST is acting in a sub-optimal way, even though within policy. So apply some common sense, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• So, based on what I read, anyone who is opposing it is not applying common sense? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I said that already that ST should change. And I said that in the other case where we forced someone to use edit summaries even though it's not required. If something is not required, then it's not required. If you want it required, don't do it on a case by case basis, make it required all across the board. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that ST should change, but don't like this proposal, would you consider bringing forward an alternate proposal? There's a clear consensus here that something needs to change, but just voting oppose to this proposal won't accomplish anything. Bradv 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is needed. It still doesn't solve the problems of ST ignoring virtually everyone who asks about their draft on his talk page, but at least people will actually get notified if their page was deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  ThePlatypusofDoom, as mentioned earlier, ST responds to draft questions on the draft itself, not on his talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  Primefac: Good point(although I prefer responding on talk pages), I struck out the relevant material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Yes it's not policy to notify anyone however it's courtesy and it's common bloody sense, I'm sure if ST had articles or files nominated without any notification then they'd probably get a little pissed (I certainly would be), It's just courtesy and common sense. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - We haven't yet heard from the subject editor either why he doesn't use Twinkle or why he doesn't notify. Given the non-use of Twinkle, I can see that notifying is work, but it is still part of the job unless there is a reason not to notify, and there are no reasons not to notify for most speedy reasons and for PROD and for AFD. So why doesn't he use Twinkle when it would do the notifying automatically? Is there a reason why you don't use Twinkle, which would simplify your job, and why you don't notify? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't used Twinkle because there were some parts that concerned me including the fact the it has room for mistakes. I can openly use it at my choice but I never liked the fact there's no use in notifying a user who is so blatant with "Thank you for visiting our company website today, let me show you our company services". For example, what's our solution for when a user starts operating multiple accounts to advertise simultaneously? We notify the first account? SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging SwisterTwister on the off chance that he's not watching this thread to see the question. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor: Support. Per the reasons listed above by other users. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• support it may not be policy, but it is certainly courteous to tell an editor that their article has been nominated for deletion, the fact that ST nominates so many is what makes this an exception. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This seems like an end-run around community consensus, and peculiarly targeted at one particular user as an editing restriction, rather than addressing the root issue. If the editors here feel that these notices ought to be mandatory (and I tend to agree that they probably should), then they should be willing to do the leg work of getting consensus to change the wording of the relevant policy/process pages, not try to strong-arm the approach by making an example of one user and trying to dictate which tools they use. SwisterTwister (in fact, no editor) should be required to conduct themselves at a stricter standard of care than our policies explicitly require of any other editor--those policies exist precisely to inform our editorial corps on how to approach a particular issue and if they do not mandate a particular behaviour, it is unreasonable to require it of any given editor, no matter how reasonable it may seem to a particular group of editors. Wikipedia already has a solution for dealing with issues like this--it's called WP:PROPOSAL. If editors think that informing the author of an article of a proposed deletion should be elevated from recommended best practice recommendation to strict requirement, they should go to the PROD, CSD, and XFD talk pages to make that proposal within the community consensus process. Alternatively, they could make a joint proposal, (meant to apply to all three processes) at WP:VPP and promote it at WP:CD. The alternative approach being considered here is nonsensical (in that it solves the "problem" with regard to exactly one editor), flagrantly disregards the community consensus process (in that it requires a standard of conduct not vetted through WP:Proposal and in conflict with the existing wording of the instructions on those process pages, which were formed through community consensus, albeit for just one editor) and, if I am to be quite frank, just plain lazy (editors want to stick a band-aid on this issue with a quick !vote to restrict the editing of just one editor--while others will be free to ignore the same best-practice advice--rather than using the usual full proposal process to address the actual substantive matter, the wording of the instructions as they exist, which would require more leg work but would lead to a more stable and equally-applied approach).

In short, it is my opinion it is "best practice" to make sure the rules apply equally to all members of our community and that flaws in instruction are corrected at the source, not by micromanagement of one editor's conduct when he is actually technically in compliance with our community's instructions as they currently read... Snow ^{let's rap} 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see how you might have missed it in all this discussion, but there is in fact a proposal under discussion at WP:CSD to codify this for all users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great; I'll have to make the time to comment in support of it, because it seems like a reasonable and pragmatic standard. But I still think it is a backwards approach to ban just one editor from this behaviour while leaving the rest of the community free to indulge in whichever interpretation they prefer in any individual instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - I don't particularly have an opinion about whether everyone should be required to notify -- if that's the community's choice, so be it, change the instructions and let's get on with life -- but I am strongly opposed to forcing a single specific user to do so while the existing policy makes it non-mandatory to do so. I'm especially opposed to forcing that editor to use a tool they don't ordinarily use. This really appears to be like unwarranted bullying on the part of the community for no great gain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support notifications. Whether by Twinkle -- to remove his excuse about how notifications are so much trouble -- or manually using Twinkle is against his religion. And please, no more garbage about how the "Rules don't require it!": doing the right thing shouldn't require absolute rules to force. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having seen SwisterTwister in AfD debates, I would estimate that, at least 85% of the time he identifies an article as advertising, he's right. Which means that he should not be enforced by the community to perform what he usually correctly sees as wasted steps. That said, he also has a very high threshold for any article he sees as commercial speech. Granted, we seem to be seeing more and more, especially from overseas locations. I would advocate, however, that he voluntarily notify the article creator when there is any doubt that the article is created by a non-involved editor. There are some number of these that are good-faith creations by new users that have simply copied from a web site or press release, not knowing our standards on RS. We need to keep this in mind and not assume any "obviously poor" article is an attempt to inflict advertising on the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's nice. And since those cases are so obviously cut-and-dried, then notification shouldn't make the slightest difference.
• No one died and left Swister Twister in sole charge of what is or isn't suitable: THAT'S WHAT THE AFD DISCUSSION IS FOR. It's not something that should call for some sort of battlefield tactic to suppress input. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the requirement that SwisterTwister notify users when nominating articles for deletion, support the use of descriptive edit summaries, oppose the requirement to use specific tools to achieve those requirements. Nick (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- either make this policy for everyone, or drop the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm uncomfortable forcing an editor to use a specific tool in order to correct what the community is describing as a behavioral issue. If the intent is to get ST "to notify users when their pages have been deleted", then that should have been the proposal. Then it would be left up to ST to how he chooses to correct the behavior - either by doing it manually or using a tool. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - although I would personally rather all editors get such notifications I understand SwisterTwisters frustration with some editors. I believe in always applying Assume good faith in the hope that some will change behaviour, and Twinkle makes it quick and easy: however a policy that all users should be notified should be general and I can't support this special action against one editor. Either the rule should be for all or none. Also regarding the initial statement "In order to ease the extra work put in by admins" I would suggest the work required was much less than the work that is now required at AfC: since this incident was raised I've noticed the backlog at AfC is increasing daily and I've had two recent talk page queries about how long it takes for reviews. Maybe some of the supporters will jump onto AfC and help fill the void (I admit I have also had to step back from editing (inc AfC) so am partially to blame for the increase as well). I think if we had more of the experienced editors helping at AfC than maybe this issue would have been muted. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think raising AfC here may be confusing that and New Page Patrol, unless SwisterTwister has been frequently responding to AfC submissions with deletion nominations? But note that I and others who used to help out once in a while at NPP can no longer do so because it's been limited to use of the page curation software and access to that is now a user right that must be requested; the bureaucracy is limiting the ability of experienced editors in general to help out. I reiterate, however, that deletion nominators are already expected to notify at least the page creator; the templates come with copiable notification templates to facilitate that; and it is not an onerous requirement, even if it were not basic courtesy and common sense, to use someone else's words above, and even if not done through Twinkle. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the mandatory use of a specific gadget. We may, and should, discuss the level of collaboration shown in (the lack of proper) edit summaries; or if there should be more notifications and talk, and if making lots of nominations in a row is somewhat disruptive, and so on; but forcing a specific gadget on a user is too much. Nabla (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support that he must use Twinkle or equivalent means of notification (such as manual). He would find that Twinkle automates the routine steps in a nomination and saves enormous amounts of time for the nominator, making him more efficient and productive at the small cost of giving notices to people he thinks are not deserving of them. He has not yet provided a good reason for not doing so, except that he seems to Assume Bad Faith on the part of article creators. What he is doing is creating extra work for administrators (who feel they have to treat his nominations differently, or even perform the notifications themselves) as well as driving away potentially productive editors, many of whom probably bad-mouth Wikipedia for the rest of their lives. IMO his actions and attitude are harming Wikipedia, and the only alternative to this kind of requirement is that he agree not to nominate articles for deletion any more. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I respectfully disagree that new editors are entitled to be notified that their articles have been tagged, and I especially disagree with Primefac's suggestion that they must be given an opportunity to respond. By design, the criteria for speedy deletion only apply to deletions that are beyond debate; allowing new editors to "defend" their creations creates false hope and wastes everyone's time. I share Tazerdadog's concerns that this proposal is overly broad (requiring a specific tool; requiring notifications for bad-faith creations) and Snow's concerns that singling out SwisterTwister for restriction is an attempt to create new policy without going through the proper process.

  That said, I support requiring SwisterTwister always to use edit summaries that plainly indicate the possibility of deletion when applying CSD, PROD, or XfD tags. Rebbing 12:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't see the basis for your objection. If nominators are infallible, then why is there information in the notification templates about appealing the speedy deletion nomination? Surely it's conceivable that even SwisterTwister is occasionally mistaken; or that a new editor (especially) didn't realize some aspect of the requirements for a new article? Also, SwisterTwister nominates a lot of articles for AfD, not just for speedy deletion. By definition, those require a discussion. I suppose you may be assuming the article creator looks at their watchlist; not everyone does, especially new editors who are unlikely to be aware of it. In the final analysis, it's true, no one is entitled to anything. But a volunteer who writes us an article is, I think, entitled to the basic courtesy of being informed that it's been nominated for deletion, under our civility pillar. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think an editing restriction of "required to notify unless [insert exceptions here]" would be better, but this works. I think that if ST CFD's something and notifies the user without using Twinkle, and that is brought here as evidence to request a block, that the editor bringing it should be immediately boomerang blocked for wikilawyering, assuming bad faith and harassment (because at that point, such would be the only reasonable explanation for why they did so).

Note: There needs to be exceptions. For example, requiring ST to notify all accounts in an SPI is arduous and counter-productive. The same goes for drafts which have been submitted and rejected numerous times and a few other cases. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this shouldn't be necessary, but here we are. The Twinkle aspect is non-binding in my opinion. The important thing is that page creators are notified when their pages are tagged for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly per above opposes. This should either apply to everybody or nobody. VegaDark (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This should either apply to everybody or nobody. I would notify, as would most editors, but if it needs to be made mandatory, make it so. No evidence is even really offered that the effect of ST not doing so is/has been disruptive. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BITE. It really does not need evidence, although common sense would dictate that there will be some. You're another one who seems to be using BURO, given that you acknowledge that you would notify if it were you in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainly yes, I fixed rule should be a fixed rule for all, or exercise judgement for all, otherwise I want some evidence of disruption, not the presumption that it must be so. Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose bureaucracy creep is problematic and most "new users" you'll find aren't interested in editing more than whatever they've started on. Time vets helpful editors: a wannabe contributor learns the lessons like we all did but keeping improper articles off of Wiki is a thankless job and to mandate those who take their time to do it only do it in some preferred way only leads to less people willing to NPP and more dreck in the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as some kind of mob lynching. ST has not violated any policy. They are not required to inform page authors and have the right not to, as long as the policy remains as it is. I for one rarely notify page creators when I tag their articles – there is simply no point: If the subject is non-notable then no amount of cleanup will change this; If the page is a complete copyvio it may as well be deleted since anything would require a complete rewrite; If the article is nonsense or a hoax then notifying the user just gives them the opportunity to remove the tag. Laurdecl ^talk 06:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. The community has wasted countless hours of time dealing with ST's deletionism. Since the solution is quite simple and actually makes his entire deletion-related work easier, I see absolutely no logical reason not to support this. The argument that "it is not required" and "we have no right to" disappears when this user has been brought to this forum a ridiculous number of times for deletion-related issues. The next step will need to be ArbCom and a possible exclusion from any deletion-related activities. This is simpler. Also note that, via ANI, the community recently made a similar and related requirement of another user (whose name escapes me) whose nearly entire edit history was deletion nominations. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose On the support side we have people saying he should do all the work that he says he would prefer and on the oppose side we have it's not policy so he shouldn't be expected to do the work he doesn't want to do. I agree with modification of policy and I believe Vandalism is a good place to look on how to deal with these sorts of situations. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." It is authoritative and clear in policy on a subjective matter whereas looking at CSD it states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." is sounds more of a mere suggestion with the words "generally considered" and "courteous" if the proposal can not be clear and concise it seems reasonable that SwisterTwister wouldn't go extra effort 600 times to be "courteous". Because I have no stance on how a user should be informed I believe which tool they decide to notify the user is up to them. I believe modification of the proposal could help create a case in a future incident discussion but as it is written currently I don't believe there is clear enough wording in the CSD to act. I believe there is a clear issue that an actual user could risk being confused by the deletion as Niteshift36 mentioned he has had confused people in IRC before. But until we make it clear that attempts notification should be made then a case of "Well the user should have been notified but you clearly made no attempts at contact" would be a good starting point. MINIMAN10000 (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary commitment proposal / alt proposal: temporary Twinkle use but no forced notification

The proposal above seems to be gathering steam for ST to be forced to notify (even if maybe not by Twinkle).

I think ST should not be forced to notify since that is not policy and there are cases where it is justifiable not to do so. However, ST complained that notifying would disrupt their workflow, which is not as much as an objection against notifications than a convenience problem. Despite what was mentioned before, I do believe that is a "I don't want to change my habits" situation.

SwisterTwister, are you willing to give Twinkle a try? There is an option to not notify the user. You could use "notification" by default, and turn it off in the cases where you think it unwarranted. By "give it a try", I mean performing a few nominations with it (say, 10) to demonstrate that you really tried it - even if afterwards you revert to the previous workflow, the learning time will be sunk cost and you would have no inertia incentive not to use TW.

If ST does not agree, I still think that a coercitive proposal along the lines of SwisterTwister must use Twinkle to perform his next 10 PROD/CSD/XFD actions is better than the current proposal (the limit could be in days/weeks, but there must be no notification obligation). It is temporary, which makes it more educative than punitive, and I have reasonable hopes that ST will, indeed, find the use of Twinkle agreeable even if forced at it at first. I agree that forcing a tool to use has no precedent, but in this precise case I can see a good chance that it would end in a win-win situation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I will note that my latest notifications have been manual ones. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You mean like when you tagged Global Traveler for deletion? Oh wait, you didn't. And you also left one of your uselessly obscure edit summaries ("N") when you placed the AFD notice. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• That is precisely the problem I see, SwisterTwister: if you are forced to make manual notifications, it will consume a lot of time, and you might be tempted to skip them. If on the other hand, you are forced to use a tool that allows easy notifications, you will have no laziness incentive to skip them - though you could still skip them, as possible per policy.

What is your answer to the voluntary Twinkle commitment I proposed? I realize that is a bit of a blackmail ("pledge that or something worse will happen"), and it might be already too late to avoid the previous proposal, but lesser of two evils and all that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing for it, but I'll note that it's quite unlikely I would become tired of notifying, as it's parallel to all my other activities here. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Since notification is automatic by default, I'm curious as to how you could become tired of it. Does it take a lot of effort to NOT check a box? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ST is currently not using automated tools for AfD etc., and so is notifying manually. (I do not understand what it's parallel to all my other activities here is supposed to mean though - surely, time spent in manual notifications is not spent elsewhere.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT ST's behavior issues consume a LOT of time on this board. I do not understand why an administrative block has not been placed by now.104.163.150.250 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's because those wanting him blocked, despite being very tenacious and insistent about it, have not made a good case for it. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • An explanation seems called for here. We don't block simply for consuming a lot of time (at the noticeboards or otherwise), nor do I, for one, want to see SwisterTwister blocked. But I regard him as a problem editor. No evidence has been put forth that he is now notifying editors when he nominates articles they created for either speedy deletion or deletion through AfD. Notifying them is strongly recommended at the pages on both deletion processes. Not doing it is a violation of community norms and is at a minimum high-handed, and the argument that he doesn't have time is invalid: not only do most of us perform the notifications (including myself, although I do not use automated processes at all), but not doing so is at a minimum high-handed toward the editors in question; to my mind it is inherently hostile, The partial justification SwisterTwister presents above, that some of those editors have a COI or are simply spammers, is classic ABF. We are required by WP:CIV, one of the 5 pillars, to assume good faith. SwisterTwister is placing absolute faith in his own nose for what should be deleted, and the damage to Wikipedia from driving off even one well-meaning editor in this way is real. Moreover, the article creator is often in the best position to find and add the needed sources once they know they are needed; by not giving them that opportunity, SwisterTwister has conceivably damaged the encyclopedia by causing articles on notable topics to be deleted that could have been saved. The argument that SwisterTwister's deletionist mindset—or his specific focus on COI articles—makes his work valuable to the encyclopedia ignores these serious considerations with his (intentionally or not) callous and selfish cutting of corners in the process. If SwisterTwister will not start notifying article creators as a general rule—as the instructions already state should be done—then the answer is not for others to continue checking his contributions as a problem editor, but for him to be required to use an automated method that puts an end to the problem. And he did not do so after the last AN/I, which focused on this precise problematic aspect of his editing, and is still not saying here that he will do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: "the last AN/I", would it be useful to this discussion if someone could look up and link to the previous times he has been brought to AN/I over his tagging practices? --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • It's because those wanting him blocked... Who would those be? I see one IP expressing surprise that ST hasn't been blocked and one editor lamenting that it may come to a choice between ST leaving notifications or being blocked. Do you have a non-imaginary case to make? --Calton | Talk 11:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Do a search of SwisterTwister's name on ANI. You'll find at least four or five threads complaining about him for very strange, often mutually contradictory, reasons and for most of these consensus is against blocking or otherwise sanctioning him. If someone is surprised ST hasn't been blocked, they should remember that people only get blocked if there's a good reason presented for it, and that hasn't been done. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
          • This blocking thing seems to be a red herring. Is anyone actually suggesting a block in this thread, aside from the snippy aside by the anon. Those who have commented about ST's contributions seem generally to be appreciative of what they do, although not necessarily of how they do it. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
            • That's exactly the point. Nobody's asked for ST to be blocked in this thread, or made anything resembling a good case for it in any previous thread. Thus it's actually not surprising that ST has not bee blocked. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Exempt certain CSD criteria from the above proposal?

The above proposal looks quite certain to be adopted, however there are some concerns about notifications for certain criteria being redundant or counterproductive. Assuming the above restriction is adopted, should any criteria be exempted, and if so, which ones?

Exempt G3, G5, G7, G10, and X1 Tazerdadog (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I want SwisterTwister to form a new habit of notifying, as the instructions say should be done (I believe the only reasons the instructions don't say you must notify are that they are concerned with all major contributors to the article, and it is often a judgement call who to include in that). And I don't want to encourage the excuse of their thinking their judgement as to whether an article is purely promotional or a hoax is infallible; that violates WP:AGF, apart from the fact that nobody's always right, about every subject area. So better to err on the side of always notifying. Hence I support the Twinkle requirement, because that makes it automatic and painless for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Right now the raw !vote stands at 21 support/ 13 oppose, or 61% support. That looks to me like a proposal that could go either way, not one that "looks quite certain to be adopted". In my view, whether the suggested sanction is imposed on ST or not rather depends on the quality of the arguments presented, and since the opposes (of which I am one) are in large part based on the actual existing language of the CSD policy, and the supports have largely failed to establish that sufficient harm is being done to justify such a punitive sanction (yes, it's punitive, since it's not preventing any violation of policy), it's actually fairly likely that it will not be imposed, but will either be closed with no action taken or allowed to scroll off the board. That said, ST should take in the "sense of the community" that many people are unhappy with his habit of non-notification, and consider changing his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. It is difficult to prove that deviating from the practise followed by most people has actually caused problems precisely because it is difficult to follow what is going on, both with notifications and the peculiar way they respond to queries about articles made on their talk page. Nonetheless, it is common sensical that non-notification is likely to piss some people off and/or discourage them from future participation, and that there is at least a self-admitted assumption of faith/unilateral conclusion being made across a wide range of articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Certainly I know that the comments on the proposal are not votes - that is why I wrote "!vote" above. Nevertheless, you are as aware as I am that looking at the numbers can be helpful in determining where a discussion is heading. As for ST, I repeat, forcing them to notify, when the policy does not require notification, is inherently a punitive measure. If you want to make notification a policy requirement, then change the policy, that's the very simple answer to all of this. If, as various people have said, ST is practically the only editor in the Wiki-verse not to notify, then changing the policy should be a piece of cake, and we've avoided punishing someone for violating a policy that does not, in fact, exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • How is it a punishment? It will make his life easier (if he opts for Twinkle, anyway). It will also make life easier for everyone else. ST's only objections thus far appear to be fairly specious and related to a subset of all that he does in this area. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The point is, even those who are opposing (your 39%, give or take) are saying that he really should be doing it. They're just arguing that he cannot be compelled to notify. But he can be per RESTRICT. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • To force someone to do something they're not inclined to do, and are not required to do by policy, and to use a tool to do it they do not normally use, and don't seem to want to use, in order to prevent nothing but the possibility of something happening, is punishing the user for not doing things the way you want them to be done, without your taking the step of requiring that it be done by changing the policy. That's punitive by any definition. Change the policy, then if ST doesn't follow it, he can be sanctioned, but not before. You are, in effect, putting the cart before the horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• I would agree with that amendment, if the proposed restriction was to pass. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see a consensus for the proposal but those who love bureaucracy would like it. The creator of an article has no more WP:OWNership of the article than any other editor. There is a centralized discussion on whether such notices should be mandatory and there, not here, should be where the matter is decided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• fwiw, I've been arguing that notification should be required in normal circumstances ever since I cam here. There has in the past been some difficulty in defining the circumstances in which it should not be required. Personally, I think even vandalism should be notified, because it serves as information for those who may encounter the editor later. The key problem, as usual around here , is harassment. And if a built in routine does something absurd like notifying myself, I just delete the notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't we have a system where if an article is added to the AFD page, it will automatically inform the article's creator (or major contributor if possible) with the help of a bot. Many bots runs on the AFD page anyhow, and adding this functionality will not be a major ask (can't do it myself as I am noob in programming). I happen to be another user who nominates AFDs without notifying users. Jupitus Smart 10:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve – false representation of sources

I have had my concerns about the edits of HangingCurve (talk · contribs) ever since they started to appear on my watchlist a few years ago. Initially this was largely to due to the unencyclopedic language they used (and still do).[46][47] This later became more about the unreferenced material they were adding to articles,[48][49][50][51][52] or changing the information in a sentenced referenced to a certain source but not changing the source.[53][54] Recently I began to revert any unsourced additions that I saw them make.

Very recently, their edits have become very troubling because they are repeatedly misrepresenting the sources being used when adding references (someone else had spotted them doing this some time ago[55]). I can understand an editor making a mistake once, even twice, but today I spotted a third occasion where they had done this in the last month. The ones I have brought them up on are:

1. 15 January 2017 Re-adds material I had deleted for being unreferenced using a source that does not contain any reference to the claim being supported.
2. 30 January 2017 Readds material previously deleted again using a source that does not support the claim being referenced
3. 2 February 2017 Adds new material to an article with a source, but source does not support this claim (conveniently they have not used a direct link to the relevant section (despite a previous request to do so), but I have been through the sections that cover this era of Polish history and cannot find anything that vaguely resembles the facts being referenced).

I am not sure whether this is malicious or just an extreme WP:COMPETENCE issue (perhaps trying to head off any reverting by just sticking in any old reference that vaguely covers the period of history in question), but I am getting tired of seeing this user's edits appear on my timeline because invarliably they are problematic (and I only see the ones they make to election articles – as their contribution history shows, they cover a wider area than that). I'm also not really sure what needs to be done, but the issue definitely needs raising – a quick check through their talk page and its archive show that concerns have been repeatedly raised with regards to their editing (this archive in particular contains numerous complaints about their sourcing, or lack of). Possibly a last warning followed by a series of escalating blocks if this continues? Cheers, Number 57 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have apologized for any mistakes I may have made--they were not out of malice, and I have tried to be more careful of late. Again, I apologize.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve, you say you have tried to be more careful of late but the most recent example is from yesterday. How is this being more careful? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned how two of the satellites to Poland's ruling Communists had a fixed percentage of seats in return for accepting their subservient role. I could have said more about what it meant, but I simply mentioned the fixed percentage. I was going to change it to "a fixed number" before it was reverted.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But that's not supported by the source either. You don't really seem to understand what the problem is here... Number 57 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can come to an agreement on this and resolve this misunderstanding. Here's what the source says for what I was trying to insert earlier: "In return for acknowledging the leading role of the PZPR, the two major coalition partners and three smaller Catholic associations received a fixed number of seats in the Sejm. Although one of the latter category, Znak, was technically an independent party, its allotment of five seats gave it very limited influence. Typically, the United Peasant Party held 20 to 25 percent of the Sejm seats and the Democratic Party received about 10 percent." How can we word this and resolve this issue? HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, I eventually managed to find where in the source website this sentence is stated – why could you not link to the page where it actually states this rather than force editors to trawl through various pages on a website? This doesn't excuse the other instances of false representation raised though. Number 57 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at another edit you made yesterday, you have cited the claim "With no other choice but to appoint a Solidarity member as prime minister, Jaruzelski appointed Solidarity's Tadeusz Mazowiecki as the country's first non-Communist prime minister since 1948" to pages 273–275 of this book. However, the source says nothing like this. What it does say is "On August 14, Kiszczak resigned, and, on August 24, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a Catholic journalist and an opposition activist, was accepted by the Sejm as the new premier." It says nothing about him being appointed by Jaruzelski and nothing about him being the first non-Communist Prime minister since 1948. How do you explain this? Number 57 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the article on the 1990 election, I thought the source mentioned that as well. I apologize ... I toned it down accordingly.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are other admins not bothered about this??? Number 57 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said, this is either malicious or a competence issue. AGF and assume it's a competence issue. HangingCurve knows their editing and sourcing is going to be scrutinized more heavily and more sloppiness will likely trigger editing sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as HangingCurve has just falsely represented a source again (I have this book, and all that page contains are the dates of elections and referendums from 1919 until 2007), I have blocked them for a week. @HangingCurve: Next time it will be a month, then a year, and then indefinitely.

Aside from this, I wonder whether a mass undo of their edits is needed as I doubt these are the only instances of them doing this? Number 57 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve has a past of revisiting the Montreal Expos article to re-insert unsourced, non-neutral content. Here is an example about the sale of the team to MLB, calling it a takeover by the commissioner's office: 2008 attempt; 2009 attempt; 2010 attempt Here are examples of adding content beyond what was contained in the cited text: [56]; [57] (re-insertion attempt a few days later with misleading edit summary: [58]). HangingCurve has added missing content (albeit at times with repetitive, overly verbose wording), so a blanket reversion was often not necessary, but sometimes there was too much opinionated material to sort through (see Talk:Montreal Expos#Partnership agreements for a discussion of one instance). isaacl (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve has been an editor for at least 11 years and is a former admin. I think he deserves a certain amount of goodwill here. I've worked with him on several articles relating to television stations and other subjects. While we've had some minor editorial disagreements, I haven't encountered the problem you describe on anything I'm familiar with. Would a mass undo affect other people's work? JTRH (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to reply to another editor, as I didn't suggest any mass undo? There were some concerns about the editor's actions as an admin, but as I mentioned, I agree there have been many edits adding new content. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to respond to Number 57, above. I apologize for the confusing indentation. JTRH (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot operator not following bot policy

• B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• B-bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot

After reviewing the bot policy, it was not abundantly clear where to bring up an issue like this, so I thought this might be an appropriate venue. If not, please feel free to redirect me. It is in my estimation that User:B is in violation of the Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Good_communication portion of Wikipedia:Bot policy. To quote this policy,

Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves.

That being in mind, I had a good faith issue with one of the actions the bot (User:B-bot) performed, where I left a note on their talk page. That was back on January 2nd. Towards the end of the month, I noticed this user had made edits, so it appeared as if I was being ignored, so I again made a note (on January 28th) on their talk page. User:B still has not responded to this issue. Furthermore, there are several other questions and issues raised on their talk page over the past month that have not been addressed; see User_talk:B#Bot_creation_of_categories_2 and the queries below that. I took a look at User:B-bot's contribs and it appears as if it does quite a bit of productive work on the site, so I very much hesitate to stop the bot (which can be done from here), but it appears as if this bot operator is not in compliance with the above quoted portion of the policy by leaving issues unaddressed for over a month. I'm not sure if that means shutting down the bot until the user starts complying with policy or what, which is why I'm bringing the issue here. VegaDark (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any problems. My findings and suggestions, bulleted for clarity:

• As stated on their talk page, B is a semi-retired user, so I wouldn't expect a timely response from them for any query. Furthermore, all of us are volunteers, and nobody is required to respond to you, me, or anybody else who edits this site.
• As far as I can tell, the bot is performing its tasks correctly. I'm puzzled by your note on their talk page. You seem to be interpreting a database report as some sort of backlog; it is not a backlog.

-FASTILY 09:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As to your first point, you're essentially arguing that because a user becomes semi retired, that the bot policy doesn't apply to them? I don't see any part of the policy making exceptions for users who proclaim themselves retired. If anything that would suggest that users who are semi retired are not allowed to run bots if they aren't prepared to comply with policy and actually respond to posts on their talk page. You're right, we are volunteers and we don't have to respond to anyone, but presumably if we are going to have that part of the bot operator policy we should either remove that or enforce it. Like administrators are expected to respond to queries on our talk pages promptly and cordially, so too are bot operators. As to your second point, it's completely irrelevant what my issue was insofar as the reason for coming to AN/I. I agree most users won't see the issue I raised as a particlurly big deal - it's the lack of communication and therefore violation of policy what should be discussed here, not whether you agree or not with my good faith complaint about the bot. That being said I would certainly characterize the database reports as backlogs, whether official or not, and I would submit that even if I were completely in the wrong about an issue I brought there about the bot, a cordial and timely response would be warranted. Furthermore you don't address that there are other users leaving messages on the talk page that are going unaddressed - this policy is in place for a reason. VegaDark (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric, I'm not here because I want to argue with you. I simply reviewed the grievances you described, and found no evidence of disruption or wrongdoing. Policy could not possibly cover 100% of cases, and when it doesn't, we apply common sense... -FASTILY 11:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if my rhetoric came off as too aggressive, I was not reading it that way - just relaying my points as to why I don't think this should be ignored. VegaDark (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just to respond to Fastily's comments above: Communication is *required* on wikipedia as part of a collaborative editing environment. Users who fail to communicate when good faith concerns are raised about their editing tend to get blocked until they do so. WP:BOTPOL is more explicit in that queries relating to bots should be responded to promptly either by the bot owner, or a proxy arranged by them if they are unable to. Secondly to lead on from the actual query - it seems a perfectly reasonable question, why is a bot creating categories in advance of them being needed, that may not be used at all, and end up getting deleted if they are unused? (The answer btw is here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. It explains why the bot is creating the categories, but it doesn't explain why it is creating them a month in advance of the earliest possible date they will actually become populated. All other maintenance categories are created at most a couple days before there is a chance they will become populated. I also don't particularly understand the reasoning as to why the category couldn't be auto-created after detecting that a category is populated (similar to other maintenance categories being deleted and then created by a bot when it detects them populated), but that's the lesser of the two issues. VegaDark (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord. First, thank you for the notification that did not link to the section header and makes me search for what you are talking about. Second, Wikipedia is not a battleground - is it really necessary to find a rule to pigeonhole your request into? How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful", not "RULE BREAKING OVER HERE!!!!!!!!"? Third, I have made the changes you requested - my bot will no longer pre-create next month's categories and will not create this month's category unless/until it is needed. --B (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• First off, as to the notification, I followed the directions at the top of the page which doesn't include any parameters. Admittedly I did not look into the actual template to determine the potential parameters to make it easier to find, but I also did not think it would be particularly hard to do a search for your user name, not to mention the direct links you would have received as a notification due to pings. Second, I was not "pigeonholing" a request into a rule. You can't both be operating a bot and ignoring your talk page for months at a time and be compliant with policy - plain and simple. As to "How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful"," that's exactly the mentality I approached you initially with. I left you two good faith messages on your talk page with plenty of time to respond, which you chose to ignore, and you're trying to make me out to be the bad guy here? I am happy you implemented the change. Going forward I am hopeful that you will be more responsive to good faith issues brought up on your page. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

IP: 107.184.220.254

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

This IP really doesn't get it or is not here, even after a block. Multiple warnings on breaking wikitables with nonstandard formatting (their most recent edits); not giving any consideration to MOS:BOXING by adding redundant/non-applicable infobox stats (the bulk of their edits otherwise, for which they were blocked at WP:EWN); and never any edit summaries or talk page responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this IP hasn't edited for over two days. I'm inclined to take no action until such edits continue. Otherwise, any action taken would appear punitive (see #4). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still doing it: [59] – just slowly. Same exact edits for which they were blocked before. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference desk discussion

Just putting a link to this discussion here. The thread should have probably been on ANI to start with, since it is explicitly about user behavior and seeking community sanctions, but since it is already a lengthy winding discussion, this should probably suffice to solicit public comment from those who don't frequent the ref desk. TimothyJosephWood 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the discussion at the refdesk talk page should be closed and redirected to here. ANI is the place to discuss TBANS and behavior issues. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If that's what folks want to do, I don't care. I just didn't see a compelling reason to rehash things. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll inform the folks at the RefDesk that the IBAN discussion should be redirected here, but there is a broader policy discussion underway in that thread, quite separate from what to do about Futurist himself, so I think closing the thread would be inappropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We can suggest that Futurist takes his questions about children and the law here or here. Count Iblis (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to push for any action yet, hopefully Futurist110 will get that many of us find questions like this unacceptable here, and take them elsewhere. Or more helpfully for him, get professional help (this is a never-ending extreme fixation-fear of his, and us answering his questions is not going to help). Discussion is ongoing about hatting questions of this sort, but we may need to re-open this if this behaviour continues, and make a formal request for a topic-ban on this user. There's a lot of discussion as to what rules cover such behaviour, and "refdesk rules" tend to be murky. I'd love if any admins could go check out the situation (yes, it's caused a 'lot of angst, I seem to have inadvertently opened some can of worms when I raised my concerns about Futurist110's questions!), and offer an uninvolved opinion on the issue, just in case we need to take it all the way to a formal topic-ban request at some future point. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The question cited above was, if a bit convoluted, on-topic and answerable, and people did answer it in interesting ways. Therefore, it could not have been inappropriate. The underlying issue of paternity, if a narrow one, is indeed one of significant legal and cultural importance and could well be explored at a professional level in much greater depth than all the Refdesk threads combined. There is a fundamental tension between the notion of the welfare of the child and innate duties of the father and the notion of being legally immune from other people's intentional bad actions. The odd sequelae, such as a question of regulatory issues involved in mailing body parts, are novel and interesting. The rule of dialectic is that the clash of thesis and antithesis are the engine of invention.

It is impossible to seriously make recommendations for Futurist's personal benefit without first showing you are willing to treat him fairly by Wikipedia procedure. The mere fact that you recognize his username does not make a question more objectionable. The basis of action here is the spy-state ground law that whosoever you see a spycam picture of while picking his nose, wanking, being posted by her boyfriend in revenge porn, whatever, is less of a person. You imagine you have privacy and should be respected but he or she has been understood by you in some way and now you can treat him or her like less of a person. But there is no privacy, only the temporary favor of the spy state, so the snooty airs of those looking down on the person whose fixation is known will last only until someone threatens to reveal their own. It is no way to live. We must first accept Futurist's rights and respect him, then we can try to get him to branch out into other things in a way that we think is more healthy, bearing always in mind that we might be wrong anyway. For every weird injustice in the world there shall be someone sent by God to end it. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTTHERAPY Wikipedia is not the place for anyone to do anything regarding this editors problems mental or physical. How does any of this deal with editing and improving articles? MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The ones suggesting "therapy" for Futurist are the ones pushing for a ban. For myself, I am content to let him post weird questions now and then and see what answers they get without ever trying to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment for any condition we might imagine that individual person might have. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

umm... TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not our place to do anything about his personal issues, just decide how we deal with the questions. Wnt, I don't care who posts lunatic questions like that, they are going to raise concern. But the issue is, he has done it repeatedly. Note my earlier comment that I backed off on requesting sanctions pending attempting alternative ways of dealing with the problem. But no, allowing such questions to be repeatedly posted does raise concerns. I'd like to avoid sanctions if at all possible. But yes, I do have a problem with the refdesk being the place for him to indulge his never-ending troubling fixation. If we can stick to hatting questions of this sort, or better still, if Futurist can take them elsewhere, that would be fine. As I have stated repeatedly, he is not otherwise a problematic editor. If not, than yes, we need to consider asking for a topic ban. I know you disagree, and that's your right. But no, I IMHO can't just "let it go on". Note also that at every point, the suggested sanction (to the degree to which some of us have advocated it) is merely a topic ban, limited to the topics at hand, not kicking Futurist110 off Wikipedia, or even off the Reference Desks. This particular issue of his is one he may need to take elsewhere. Eliyohub (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you define "lunatic questions"? I realize that the Twelve Tables are going out of fashion worldwide, but here it is still unusual to have a ban without a visible policy to explain it. Note that this is an enforcement forum, not a new policy forum - perhaps this discussion should never have been moved here at all? Wnt (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't personally think we should discuss this here, let it stay at the ref desk. The ref desk isn't really part of Wikipedia, none of the normal rules apply there, it is an open forum and does not operate like a real reference does at all. Let what happens at the ref desk stay at the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, exactly this issue was raised, about the odd nature of the Reference Desk compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and the lack of clear rules as to acceptable behaviour thereon. There are Guidelines, but absolutely no policy specific to the desks. So we are sort of stuck when issues like this arise, as to what the rules are, and whose job it is to police them. Given the lack of policy covering the matter, I can't really expect any admin action in a situation like this (barring clear violation of usual wikipedia rules, such as trolling or disruptive editing - we do have a troll or two, and in one of them, admins have blocked him, and included him in WP:LTA), but what do you suggest so that us refdesk contributors can draw up some enforceable rules to deal with our unique situation? If someone proposes a policy as to acceptable refdesk questions and responses, and it is accepted by the usual consensus process, can the admins then enforce it as any other policy? We're sort of stuck with a free-for-all at the moment, and it isn't always working. Eliyohub (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to introduce some sanity a few years ago, and the refdesk regulars weren't having it. They were mad that someone from outside the clubhouse was trying to spoil their good time. It's notoriously difficult to introduce reforms in walled gardens like the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I came across this via a post at the Help Desk, and...seeing the way things seem to work, I fully realize why I don't go there. As far as drawing up a suggestion, seems a lot like 90%+ is hattable under WP:NOTFORUM, and I suppose if you could find a way to do it that wouldn't run afoul of WP:POINT, there's really nothing anyone could do to sanction you, since being "disruptive" in a way that is 100% in line with policy isn't sanctionable...and isn't actually disruption, even if lots of vocal people don't like it. I'm not sure I care enough to spearhead anything, since it's likely to be a waste of time anyway, but if someone wants to put together a hat-squad to enforce NOTFORUM, I'd volunteer a bit of my time. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I could never understand why Wikipedians so begrudge an occasional joke or off-topic reply in a thread, but then, with no sense of irony at all, start nasty admin witch-hunts that go on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about stuff that could just as readily be ignored, chock full of bogus ethics and bogus wikilawyering that is patently intended to serve some POV or grudge or side agenda. Ordinary healthy forum banter is not a problem on Wikipedia (and even less so on the Refdesks) -- it's the endless game of veiled threats and fine gradations of intimidation that is the problem. It may indeed be that throughout the entire internet, there is only one message, and that is the medium, and the medium is one of concentrated wealth, private ownership, and unrestricted arbitrary power exercised by the few against the many. But Wikipedia should try to defy that trend while the world looks for a better economic and communications system. Wnt (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the "occaisional joke or off topic reply" at all, and indeed have been known to make such posts myself. The thing with the refdesks is that they are a policy-free-zone that isn't consistent with the way the entire rest of Wikipedia works. Frankly, they shouldn't be here as they aren't really part of the encyclopedia at all. There are plenty of other places on the internet that aren't tying to be an encyclopedia what already do exactly what the refdesks do. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You can say that user talk pages aren't really part of an encyclopedia, or Lua modules, or video, or many other things. But what does that mean? If you have an encyclopedia, people are going to want to ask questions, and many will feel that answering those questions can help to grow it. So you can do what I know some hard-core process people would take great pleasure in and outright ban every new user who posts a "how do I do this...?" question in response to one of our legendarily clear articles about math concepts that are full of long unsourced proofs while vigorously resisting the temptation to prove simple examples. And ban them for harassment if they instead go to the editors who wrote those articles and ask. Or ... you can provide a proper place for them to go.

Now properly speaking, Wikimedia should integrate its various projects more closely; it may be the Refdesk would be more satisfactorily pigeonholed as a Wikiversity project. But in practice we know the other branches seem to wither and aren't well integrated because things like transclusion and bluelinking/redlinking don't work between them and even user login transfers are a little iffy, and worse, they all have different rules and different power cliques to go with them and I'm sure you know that being sure to study and obey every last rule is more important than having an educational intent. So a transfer of that magnitude just seems too large and awkward to do. What we know is the content is valuable, educational, within the WMF mission, arises naturally from the routine operation of a working encyclopedia, and can contribute to the development of that encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the WMF mission isn't nearly as relevant as the purpose of Wikipedia, since each project is only intended to fulfill a delineated piece of what the WMF is for, and do that as well as possible. If the purpose is to operate an actual reference desk, that is, to assist editors in finding sources for use in improving the project, or find obscure WP articles on particular subjects, then that is certainly within the scope of WP, and the ref desk is failing fairly badly at it. If however, the purpose is to (...oh...poking around on recent questions...) provide recommendations for skin care products and help users find online manuals for their quad copter, then it's a pretty resounding success, but completely outside the scope of the project.

Regardless, since there seems to be wide spread opposition to any type of sanction, and reforming the reference desk as a whole is 1) not a discussion to be had on ANI, and 2) not a proposal that obviously requires administrator action, we can probably close this, and probably should, and anyone who cares enough to hash it out can have the conversation and the ref desk talk. I happen to not be one of them. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: It seems a small criticism of the refdesk that a passerby asked a vague question about a quadcopter manual. How would we run a refdesk so that no one asks a question you think ought to be beneath it? More to the point, we could take this opportunity to organize a better list of the quadcopter articles we have, ensure that relevant documentation for each is provided, and explain what "Plug and Play" is and what kind of USB cable it is. Mind you, I'm not talking about relaxing notability requirements -- we already have half a dozen of those articles, just do a search. An editor has just pointed out that he can't find what he wants. Either we can be snooty, say you lousy prole, how dare you ask us about some trivial consumer good when all we should really be writing about is the big government death machine kind of drone, or we can listen to him and fix that. So far the Refdesk hasn't really pulled through there - the OP not specifying a model or a clear question didn't help - but it could, and that makes it relevant. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I'm done with the conversation. Literally anything else on the project is a better use of my time. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.

So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following

1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL

Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.

You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.

I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.

I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.

That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down

• Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.

• Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?

• Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

• I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now

• And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.

• You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.

• Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.

• This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.

• I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me

• This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [60] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles

• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Psychopathy
• Insomnia

These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
  • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
  • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
  • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
  • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
  • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.

And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.

All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.

Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed

• Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing that Petergstrom does seem to be seeking to do better, perhaps through mentoring, and that the SPI appears to have come up negative (alleged master and sock on different continents), I am now leaning oppose to a topic ban, with a strict understanding that WP:ROPE now applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [61] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [62]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [63] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [64], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - (conditional) *If* Petergstrom was sincere when he said "I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors., and *if* both sockpuppet investigations are closed without showing abusive socking (it now appears that will be the result), and *if* a volunteer can be found to mentor him on behavioral and interaction issues raised above, then a ban should be postponed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Xenophrenic, and anyone else reading, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. All that stated, if you believe that Petergstrom can be reformed, and it seems that you do, I hope that you are right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Flyer22 – I hear you. I don't feel like I have really made up my mind about this, but I tend to think that this is a matter of WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support limited-time topic bans while noting that I am WP:Involved with the blocked user whose sock Petergstorm is accused of being. I'm not convinced Flyer22 got the right master, but the user's claims to be a newbie haven't convinced me either. I support the medical topic ban based on Jytdog's report of interactions above, and the religion topic ban based on this edit war in which the user uses a tabloid source to add a new section immediately after the Lead retroactively diagnosing a Catholic saint with a psychotic disorder. (The material could have been appropriate with secondary sourcing further down in the article, but not in it's own "Mental health" section without lots of high quality sources.) Also per similar bizarre edit wars on Jesus [65] and Moses [66] ~Awilley (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While User:Petergstrom is facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, he just continued edit warring on one of the same articles that brought him here! I think this demonstrates that he is unwilling to change and seek guidance. I therefore support a topic ban (and probably a block) because I think it's necessary for him to slow down.--Jobas (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support my impression from what I find in this huge time-sink/thread is that this editor's behavior, if permitted to continue unchecked, will lead to more huge time-sink/threads on this page. I'm seeing far too much WP:IDHT and POV-pushing, and far too little respect for the viewpoints of others. Lepricavark (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I must give you props for the compilation of information on all of this. I am sure it took lots of time to collect. I also looked at Jytdog's comments on another sockpuppet investigation. I agree with Jytdog that the initial edits show some familiarity with how Wikipedia is used. Also the familiarity with some WP policy, including sort of frequent use of noticeborads - which most Wikipedians never really use, strikes me as not dealing with a someone new to wikipiedia. The edits mentioned by Flyer22 Reborn do show some similarity in style to some other past accounts such as the outlining style and similar interests in medicine and religion. I am inclining to agree that some sort of sockpuppetry may be at play. Normally, new editors learn some lesson after being blocked, but the recurrent blocking and alerting that has occurred from other editors seems to show experience with the process and also how to make a defense for it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

This is getting well out of hand, PAs, ridicule, accusations of bias and telling uses to fucking stop [67] [68] [69][70]

I have not linked to all (just the latest spat, the last 12 hours), it is the whole thread.

This needs to be put a stop to I have no wish to say who I think is at fault (I do not think it is one person) but there seems to be an attitude that says "we will not tolerate any Fringy stuff, or those who support it's inclusion". This in turn is causing other users to respond angrily.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the two users pinged in my "fucking stop" comment were actively edit warring...as in...a reversion every few seconds. That wasn't directed at anyone but them, and I have no opinion on, nor have I actually read whatever that conversation is actually about. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about this from the beginning. JpS (or however else they wish to be known) was hatting a polite and civil comment on my part where I was requesting JpS comment on the edits, not the editors. This is a perfectly normal request which we all see many times a day on WP. I reverted the hatting because it is "illegal" - WP:Hatting states " ...should only be used by uninvolved editors "(bold emphasis is from the page). JpS is clearly involved and should not have hatted my comment. I'm not even sure why this is being classified as edit warring on my part, other than I reverted JpS' illegal hatting twice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment about no tolerating stuff was about a general tone I have seen on the forum from a group of editors of whom Jps is the most vocal. I am sorry if you think that was aimed at you. To be clear the only complaint I have with you was the swearing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the intention was to get someone's attention, and apparently it worked. The amount of dumb in edit warring over whether to hat a nine word comment is beyond my dumb-tolerance-specifications. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, perhaps you would feel differently if it was your words that were being illegally hatted. Would you care to comment on the edit summaries that JpS has been leaving at that thread? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you'll note, I unhatted when I left my comment, so that should probably suffice as to my opinion on it. Other than that, I'm not really part of this complaint. I would only note the pointy header installed after I unhatted. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have thanked you at the time for the unhatting - thank you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am quite in the dark about why jps/9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/ScienceApologist is saying I have some bone to pick or clear agenda there, or why he wants to hat or section off the bit where he said so, but I wouldn't call it edit warring unless he repeats those actions. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tim is talking about Jps and DrCrissy, and we can now add edit warring to the list.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• All of this appears to be over whether or not to call Eric Lerner a "scientist". I do think that jps needs to dial it down. But here's an idea: for all of the reverting at the Lerner bio page and all of the arguing at FTN, not a single word has been spilled at Talk:Eric Lerner. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Then an admin needs to have words with him, as he is ignoring everyone else (not that he seems to be that concerned over admins as well, but then given the number of blocks he has had (and had reduced) that is hardly a surprise). But I shall raise this on the talk page, and see what happens.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I am semi-involved there. I think that discussion has gone way off the rails. WP:STICK needs to be invoked by all concerned, and the dead horse should be left in peace. The only thing I see administrator intervention as facilitating would be a forced end to that discussion by hatting. But I suspect the discussion has drawn to a close naturally. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The the PA's and ridicule, the blatant breaches of AGF?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Keeping a pointless and unproductive discussion alive long past its freshness date can have the general effect of wearing patience thin. This is a tried and true Wikipedia tactic. I have no doubt look that an administrator considering sanctions will not look very kindly at the supposedly "good faith" presentation of creationist sources as if they met WP:RS, failure to RTFA, insisting that to not say something in an article requires a source that says that it's not true, etc. If this was not all a deliberate tactic to provoke other editors at FTN into questioning one's competence and/or good faith, it was doing a damn good job of pretending to be just that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Which "pointless discussion"?, as to "creationist sources" they are not automatically not RS, and this shows exactly the kind of attitude I was referring to in my OP here. The automatic and contemptuous dismissal of anything that does not agree with their POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I understand that it looks like automatic and contemptuous dismissal. I really do. But go to Talk:Creationism, Talk:Evolution, Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, Talk:Evidence of common descent and Talk:Intelligent design and read through the archives of those pages. When you get sick of reading the same arguments over and over, then you might understand the contemptuousness that seems to be present whenever anyone brings up anything creationist. You'll understand that it's not so much contempt as it is frustrated exhaustion.

As to the 'automatic' part, I think the long and well-worn histories on those pages show that this isn't automatic, but the result of years and years of consensus that has been challenged in every conceivable way, yet stood firm against all challenges. I agree that the tone in that thread has gotten out of hand, but as has been pointed out: that's to be expected for this kind of discussion. Sanctions aren't needed because the problems will go away just as soon as the discussion does, and will (tend to, at least) remain within the context of that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you are wrong (after all Jps has multiple blocks for edit warring and other offences (about 1 a year, including a few last chances), but I will accept the decision.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For any article centering on evolution, or the geological history of the earth or other related topics, creationist sources are automatically fringe and not reliable sources except for reporting the views of creationists. They are not reliable for factual, scientific information. That anyone editing a fact-based encyclopedia should think otherwise is simply bizarre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it was clear from context I was saying he was wrong about Jps not continuing his pattern of behavior. Also I was not using the source for "scientific facts" but whether some is a practicing science (which (as with any job) you do not have to be any good at to practice it). The point being made is that they are not RS for anything they say. I never tried to use it to support a scientific fact, not have ever said they are usefull for that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed should, I think fully address the question of whether creationist sources are reliable for claims which are even related to science. They're not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:AusLondonder

User:AusLondonder has been badgering me, including repeatedly tagging a userfied article for speedy deletion as well as making wild accusations and not assuming good faith on multiple pages.--TM 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still looking, but... Hey, @AusLondonder:, from WP:G4: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).

I think you're misusing G4 on his userified copy and you need to stop that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Article was previously deleted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Cohen Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to propose a boomerang for Namiba. The Linda Cohen article was deleted through the usual community process at AFD in May 2016. Shortly before that, Namiba moved the article to userspace. Since then, Namiba has made zero edits to improve the article. WP:G4 states that content that has been moved to userspace to circumvent deletion policy is eligible for speedy deletion. WP:FAKEARTICLES also makes clear that "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with db-g4". Namiba then proceded to violate WP:CSD policy by removing the speedy tag three times from the userpage. Namiba furthermore violated WP:UP#CMT by removing the speedy notification from their talk page. Regarding harassment, not assuming good faith, and making wild accusations, Namiba launched a bad-faith attack on me for nominating an article on a non-notable African-American for deletion during Black History Month, implicitly accusing me of racism. Namiba then immediately made a disruptive revenge deletion nomination of an article I had created on a secondary school in Africa. Namiba must cease this highly disruptive and battleground behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert How the hell am I misusing G4? It is pretty clear. AusLondonder (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment Namiba has now removed the speedy tag placed by another editor a further three times (for a total of six), obviously violating WP:3RR (which they have been warned for in the past) and continued to remove speedy notification from their talkpage AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Was any effort made anywhere to explain "If you don't work to improve this, it can't hang around indefinitely in your userspace", or did you just move straight to a G4 proposal? You appear to have just moved straight to G4ing it. No talk page, no edit summary, nothing. If I am mistaken please point out where you did so notify. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Namiba is not a newbie, and, I assumed, would have resented having things "explained" to them by myself, a much newer editor. They've been editing for more than a decade. They've made nearly 90,000 edits. They were of course welcome to object to the speedy deletion proposal, they chose not to. I notified them immediately. I'm not sure how you can be the only other editor here to choose to criticise me instead, given the page has now been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How can you think that just repeating something several times without explaining why/what is appropriate *anywhere* to *anyone*? And this goes for @Twitbookspacetube: as well. People misunderstand or misread policy all the time. Hammering harder is never the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The best way to explain something is to let someone read it for themselves. That was done. How would you have explained the "why" and "what" differently? AusLondonder (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The policies had been linked to and reverted from their talkpage on at least 5 occasions. Clearly no effort was made to read them. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. If an editor with a decade's experience and approaching 90,000 edits is not listening it is not the obligation of other editors to waste their own time and somehow magically translate for them. Seems we're having a bit of nit-picking going on here. How about we nitpick about the false allegations against me at the start of this ANI? AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Didn't realise that this had come here. I already deleted the page and explained that you can't just keep stuff, since last April, without making some improvement. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I encountered AusLondoner at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hunter-Clarke_(2nd_nomination) and immediately had concerns.  I noticed that in an AfD mentioned above, he removed the prod with the edit comment "funny".  Yet the only reference in the article at the time was from youtube.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've also had experiences with AusLondoner that make me go "hmm." I was working on an article for a cosmetic product that no one I know even uses (much less sells), and within only a few minutes AusLondoner tagged it as "unambiguous promotion." It wasn't that big a deal so I didn't fight it, but it's looking like AL could slow down and be a bit more reflective on these sorts of things. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You are displaying racism!

I'm posting this request on ANI not to request blocks or other punitive actions requiring admin tools, but just to solicit some assistance and advice with the hope that if it comes from an admin it might be taken more seriously.

In a nutshell,

• (1) I've been accused by a fellow editor of improperly "canvassing users with my POV" to a deletion discussion, and I find that offensive (here is my non-targeted canvass message); and more significantly,
• (2) I've been called a racist, which is outrageous and completely unacceptable. (Here is the diff of the comments.)
• (3) These personal attacks took place not on an Admin noticeboard (which is the appropriate place to make these assertions) or on a personal User Talk page (where I'm much more tolerant of people ranting at me, as long as we can have a dialog about it), but at a public community discussion with, in my opinion, the intent of poisoning those discussions.

I've tried removing and replacing the personal attacks with the (Personal attack removed) template per WP:TPO, but he repeatedly re-inserts them in the community discussion. I've asked him to bring his allegations here to ANI, with evidence, but he ignored my suggestion. I've tried opening a dialog on his User Talk page to discuss his concerns, which was ignored and deleted. Now I am asking an Admin to review the situation and then clearly convey to User:Jobas that personal attacks of this nature are not okay, and if he has concerns about a fellow editor, he should raise them at the appropriate noticeboard in the future.

Context by way of full disclosure: there is already some friction here, as I am a co-nominator in this deletion discussion of a category created by User:Jobas. And I've already been critical of Jobas for pinging at least 5 other editors (known to be in disagreement with me in related matters) to the discussion in violation of our canvassing policy. Thanks in advance for any assistance in this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:Jobas has been notified of this report on his Talk page.

I'm afraid that you might get Wikipedia:BOOMERANGED here Xenophrenic. It's pretty convenient that you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston of the fact that you refactored the comments of several editors. I'll explain the situation for everyone to evaluate. As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request):

But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it. It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles, but when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus. That's why I and @Marcocapelle both asked you to repopulate. Please do so, or I will simply go through your contribs list and rollback the relevant edits ... and that may also rollback other changes you made to the same articles. Once the category is restored, feel free to open a CFD nomination for deletion. Make your case and see where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl

It should be noted that User:Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic, agressively edit warring to reinstate his preferred (and censored) version of the article. His unblock request was appropriately declined by administrator User:Huon (it might be helpful to view extensive block log). Now, on the deletion discussion that User:Xenophrenic opened, User:Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him. For example, this diff provides just one (out of many) examples in which User:Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did (in this case see that User:LoveMonkey's and User:Eliko007's comments) were deleted. Another example includes User:Xenophrenic deleting a concern that he WP:CANVASSED several editors to the discussion, in addition to his previous edit warring with User:Ramos1990 (see diff). When these individuals tried to restore their comments, User:Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate. With regard to User:Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack:

Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Xenophrenic

My user page indicates that I have Arab Christian heritage (a minority in my region) and it was obvious that User:Xenophrenic used this to mock me. I will let the rest of the evidence speak for itself, Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that the last quote provided directly above looks like a perhaps really cheap shot by Xenophrenic, and that such do not help reduce the complaint of racism, although I don't think it in and of itself maybe necessarily qualifies as anything other than a cheap opportunistic shot. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

John, please read that quote in context (see the text box just below), and then revise your comment if you see fit. There is certainly no racism or heritage mocking, and the curt snark you sense was in response to Jobas' repeated assertion that I had not cited any sources after I had referenced at least a half-dozen. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This one is going to be messy. I think Jobas overstepped the line with his accusation of racism. And I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of both Jobas for the ping and Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. I was pinged to the deletion discussion and chose not to directly involve myself because the ping might be construed as canvassing as well as my previous, and less than pleasant interactions with Xenophrenic. There is quite a bit of history here that covers more than just this CFD discussion. Jobas and Xenophrenic have been going at it on a number of different threads. IMO both have shown some symptoms of WP:AGENDA oriented editing. I am concerned that Jobas may be here to right great wrongs while Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so. [Full disclosure: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with most of what Ad Orientem says above. A single notice on an article talk page, which is what Xenophrenic links to, under the circumstances, is probably insufficient for these purposes and certainly hints at selective notification/canvassing. I also have gotten a definite impression from X and a few others on the CfD page that at least some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines. I seem to remember discussions of this type regarding various articles or other forms of content relating to this topic as well. Personally, I might favor having a broad based RfC or maybe having ArbCom appoint a board to review the matter of a lot of our "religious persecution by group foo" or "persecution by foo" content rather than selecting one out of the number for specific consideration. And I note that there are also, at this time, similar categories for Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims (as per Category:Religious persecution), which somehow, despite the obvious similarities of topics, were somehow not considered in consideration of the current CfD. Strikes me at least as a little odd. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines. --John Carter

John, I think your bias is showing. You do realize Jobas and I are both Christian, right? Some editors, unfortunately, make it a point to heavily incorporate that into their Wikipedia editing about subjects concerning "the other" groups. I've seen comments which might indicate a person's position, but I don't let that influence my editing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:John Carter, what's specifically troubling is that Xenophrenic emptied Category:Persecution by atheists but then added Category:Persecution by Christians (edit diff) to other articles, such as Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, as if the genocide of American Indians was somehow directly a cause of Christianity. I went ahead and undid all of Xenophrenic's removals of Category:Persecution by atheists until the CfD discussion (and hopefully an ArbCom discussion) is resolved about all the categories pertaining to religious persecution. This is in accordance with the recommendation of a sysop, BrownHairedGirl. I'd watch out for Xenophrenic edit warring to remove them again since he has a history of doing that. Eliko007 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Eliko007, that false assertion of yours has already been refuted on your Talk page. Are you of the opinion that if you keep repeating it, it will magically become true? Quoting from your Talk page:

Xenophrenic has not "added Category:Persecution by Christians to some articles". Persecution by Christians was added to that article by Mateoski06, with whom Jobas has been edit-warring over that category for some time. The category did get re-inserted into the article as part of larger rollback or revert edits I made, but I never added it to the article. Painting the situation inaccurately as an effort by Xenophrenic to remove one category while adding another catetgory, is not appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Since I was pinged here as having declined to unblock Xenophrenic: When I reviewed that unblock request, the block had already run out, and the decline was entirely procedural. No opinion on the current dispute; haven't looked into it. Huon (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BOOMERANG, if an Admin decides to unnecessarily advise me, instead of Jobas, not to call fellow editors racist - it will be wasted words. As for most of the comments above, I realize we've entered a Post truth era, but I naively hoped Wikipedia editors wouldn't surrender themselves to it so thoroughly. Let's examine the comments more closely.

• Alternative fact: you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston --Jobas

Reality: No, I saw your note to Ed, and I even responded there. Then you again re-inserted your personal attacks into the deletion discussion, with an edit summary that promised "i will raise the issue". But instead of raising the issue, you resumed editing elsewhere - so that is when I raised the issue here for you.

• Alternative fact: you refactored the comments of several editors. --Jobas

Reality: No. I replaced personal attacks as defined at WP:NPA with the (Personal attack removed) template, which was completely appropriate. (Oh, and I moved a question addressed to the nominator -intact- into the "Questions for nominator" section to reduce confusion.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. --Jobas

Reality: Many editors removed the problematic category from articles (not just me - [71], [72], etc.) resulting in an empty category, which Marcocapelle (again, not me) nominated for deletion (see nomination [73], [74]). I reluctantly joined the deletion discussion later, after BrownHairedGirl had talked me out of nominating it for deletion. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page where I "struck" my intent to delete the category.)

• Alternative fact: BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) ... asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request) --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic did better than roll back his few edits, he listed and linked every article previously tagged with that problematic category, to address Marcopelle and BrownHairedGirl's concerns. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic never "blanked an entire section"; he simply moved a problematic addition of content to the Talk page for collaborative discussion and improvement (see the edit summary of the move here). The discussion of that completely intact content is still here. I was blocked for simple perceived "edit warring" by an admin who was privately pinged to the article, but wasn't informed of the agreement between editors to leave the article in a pre-edited state (per WP:BRD) until concerns were resolved. That admin and I had agreed via email to take his block action to a public Review, before he abruptly retired under a cloud of other allegedly problematic admin actions.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him ... Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic didn't refactor or delete any comments, he only replaced blatant personal attacks with a {{rpa}} template, and requested that editors instead raise such concerns at WP:ANI. A quick check of the diff provided by Jobas will confirm this.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate --Jobas

Reality: Marcocapelle did indeed opine incorrectly that removal of personal attacks is inappropriate (see: WP:RPA on removal: where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose). What Jobas fails to mention is Marco advised him "you should discuss this with User:Xenophrenic directly, preferably on their user talk page. If that doesn't help, you could ask an administrator to have a further look. Jobas ignored that advice, ignored my attempts to discuss his concerns, and instead persisted in repeatedly re-inserting his unsubstantiated accusations of "racism" and targeted canvassing of people with "my POV".

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack: Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Jobas

Reality: If there were "many", Jobas would waste no time in producing them. There are none. Look at the one snippet Jobas does cite, in context, and it is clear that it certainly isn't racism, and it certainly isn't "mocking his heritage". Jobas has said that English is not his native language, and my comments show that my concern (and growing frustration) was only that there was a serious communication problem. His comments were making less and less sense:

Your Blainey source doesn't mention "Persecution by atheists", which is what we are discussing here. You say that English is not your native language, so perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read? It doesn't support the nonsensical category you created. Xenophrenic 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English please? We've already addressed the fact that Blainey doesn't convey that there was persecution because of atheism, and your statement "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews" has no meaning in the English language. Reword, please? Regards, Xenophrenic 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? Dawkins is a reliable source, of course, until I hear otherwise from WP:RSN. Xenophrenic 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative fact: I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of ... Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. --Ad Orientem

Reality: Yes, I WP:CANVASSED, but appropriately and as recommended: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small and An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: one or more WikiProjects ... The talk page of one or more directly related articles. The category under discussion is "Persecution by atheists", so I placed a notice at the Atheists (redirects to Atheism) talk page. That is the only "directly related" talk page, and it happens to be frequented more by critics of atheism if the discussions are any indication. (Note: I originally went to WikiProject:Atheism to post a notice, but I was greeted with an inactivity banner, and I saw it had only been edited a handful of times over the past 5 years.) On what possible grounds, Ad Orientem, do you cast aside WP:AGF and conclude there was "selective notification" going on?

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so. --Ad Orientem

Reality: Xenophrenic doesn't deal in "suggestions" in articles, only reliably sourced information and policy-compliant presentation. Of course atheism is a component of the last century of history; in fact, reliable sources convey that it was a sought-after and expected result in many regimes, and I've never argued otherwise. Your assertion that I'm "expunging" anything inappropriately is absurd, and I must press you for explicit substantiation, please.

• Alternative fact: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY --Ad Orientem

Reality: I have no problem with you canvassing at more locations, because when WP:CONSENSUS policy is followed, head-counts and votes don't matter, and consensus is determined by quality of the arguments - so more people can only be a good thing. I see you canvassed at Wikiproject:Christianity. So did Eliko007, here. Oh, and yet again at that page. Can't have too many notices at the same project, I always say. Eliko007 also hit Eastern Orthodox. I see you also placed one on their Wikiproject page. At least yours are neutrally worded, while Eliko007's notices come complete with disparagement of a fellow discussion participant at no extra charge. Actual violations of canvassing policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

OK, I've taken a somewhat closer, but not forensic, look at the immediate issues and also the editing history of both parties. At this point I have reached a few conclusions and am ready to make some preliminary recommendations for the community's consideration.

• Jobas erred and breached WP:AGF in his accusation of racism. The evidence is nowhere near sufficient to sustain that charge. I suggest a short, 12-24 hrs, block.
• I suspect but am uncertain that Jobas may have been engaging in CANVASSING in his ping. I suggest he be admonished to exercise greater care when pinging other editors to any discussion where there is a possibility of it being interpreted as canvassing.
• Jobas' longer term editing history reinforces my suspicions stated earlier that he may be here to right great wrongs, especially on the subject of religious persecution. That suspicion is not as strong as with Xenophrenic but it is there. A topic ban may be in order, but I am not certain enough to formally suggest it at this point. I would be interested in reading the views of other editors before going there.
• After taking a look at Xenophrenic's editing history, of which more shortly, I am satisfied that his selective notification of the ATHEISM talk page was clear canvassing. I suggest a short term (12-24hrs) block and that a note be posted on the CFD discussion advising the reviewing admin that some of the !votes may be a result of canvassing.
• Xenophrenic's editing history, and I'm not going to post diffs, there are just too many, strongly indicates a pattern of tendentious, and at times very aggressive editing on the subject of atheism, and in particular its alleged involvement in acts of religious persecution. When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong. It is also worth noting that he has been repeatedly blocked for aggressive editing in the past. On which basis I suggest that Xenophrenic be indefinitely topic banned from both the subjects of atheism and religious persecution broadly construed.
• As much as I hate adding to ArbCom's work load, I agree with John Carter's suggestion that we kick the issue involving categories assigning responsibility for various large scale religious persecutions to them. This is such a deeply controversial topic that it is bound to get heated and draw POV editing.

Full Disclosure: I had an unpleasant interaction with Xenophrenic on the issue of religious persecution in the past, where I felt his editing on the topic of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Communist period was overly aggressive and lacking in respect for the opinions of other editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Would you mind specifically indicating that "unpleasant interaction" with me, with perhaps some explanatory information as to why you found it unpleasant? Congrats on your adminship, by the way. May I suggest you refrain from suggesting punitive blocks (12-24 hrs)? Blocks should be used to stop ongoing disruption, or prevent inevitable disruption, but not as punishment after the fact. Note that I didn't ask to have Jobas blocked for his accusation of racism, repulsive as it was, and as explained above (and at WP:CANVASS) I did not conduct selective canvassing. Also, if you are going to make accusations like "When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong", you really should provide that evidence. Otherwise, you don't leave the wrongly-accused much to work with. You've admitted that you are involved, and you've further admitted your negative disposition toward me, so I think your recommendations of administrative actions is very out of place. But, to be frank, I'd prefer it if you remain engaged here if there is any chance of us clearing the air and develop any level of mutual understanding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, thank you for your response and congratulatory note. We had a disagreement back when you were purging any reference to atheism on Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I am prepared to reconsider my suggestion for the block of Jobas based on Drmies comment below which raises some doubt. In your case, I'm sorry but it still looks like canvassing to me. Feel free to make your case though. The community will look at the evidence and history and draw their own conclusion. I take the same view of our previous disagreement. I disclosed it in the interest of fairness and the community can decide what weight, if any, they choose to give my opinions in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Ad Orientem, I've just reviewed our "unpleasant" interaction at the article you mentioned, which consisted of you trying to insert a problematic category twice, and me reverting those insertions. That's it. If that brief interaction was 'unpleasant' for you, I predict you are going to be in for a world of disappointment as an administrator. Here are the 4 edit summaries from our interaction over the span of a week:

→ Per WP:COMMONSENSE. The USSR was a state governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. -You

→ Not supported in article (and per WP:COMMONSENSE, persecution is not a component of Atheism, duh, it's a component of Marxist-Leninist ideology); already has the accurate Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union -Me

→ Undid revision 729892191 by Xenophrenic (talk)The USSR was an officially Atheist state between 1928-1939 during the height of the persecutions. Please stop your aggressive POV editing. -You

→ rmv n/a cat; WP:BRD - see Talk -Me

At that point I initiated a discussion on the article Talk page here, clearly explaining why the category was removed. You never joined the discussion. What you describe as "purging any reference to atheism on Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union" was in reality my removal of a single non-applicable category, while I left 164 - yes, count them, one hundred and sixty four - references to atheism in the article. I think you just took exaggerated hyperbole to a whole new level. Would I be incorrect to conclude that you consider our interaction "unpleasant" not because of our brief edit summary interaction, but because of our different ideological positions in this matter? And as for the other matter, "it still looks like canvassing to me" - of course I canvassed, as did you, because we are supposed to. And we both did so neutrally. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I stand corrected in my characterization of your editing on that article and have stricken that line from my comment.Beyond that I have already addressed quite candidly our differences and stated that the community is free to draw its own conclusions. My editing record speaks for itself, as does yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Ad Orientem, I appreciate your feedback and you taking the time to review this issue. I should note that English is my third language and so "racism" might have been the wrong word to use, although as administrator User:John Carter pointed out above, it was "perhaps [a] really cheap shot by Xenophrenic, and that such do not help reduce the complaint of racism". If racism wasn't the right word to use, User:Xenophrenic's comments were definitely offensive and still hurtful. It was not only myself, but another Wikipedian, User:LoveMonkey, who made the following comment to User:Xenophrenic after also feeling that User:Xenophrenic's comments were unwarranted and possibly xenophobic:

You appear to be assuming bad faith as you say "English please" and this or that "doesnt even make sense" to you as if you have to be in agreement, policy here says thats not so that behavior is a characteristic of disruptive editing. If you can not hear or understand which is a vio called WP:IDHT you not here to contribute you are here to disrupt. --LoveMonkey

I should note that I did not make the charge against User:Xenophrenic after the first personal attack against me, but User:Xenophrenic can be seen making comments attacking my heritage/language at least three times, e.g. "English, please?", "perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read?", "Oh, and yes I've cited many reliable sources already (keep reading; they are in English)", "Is that Arabic?". Also, I did not hyperlink your username in order to ask for a comment in the discussion, but I simply hyperlinked your name because I mentioned that you had reverted User:Xenophrenic's removal of the category (this was indeed relevant to the discussion). Once again, I apologize if I used the improper word to describe User:Xenophrenic's repeated jabs at me, but in light of English being my third language, I don't think that this should minimize his actions (and I also apologize and ask forgiveness for using the incorrect word to convey my feelings). Very respectfully, Thank you.--Jobas (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if I used the improper word to describe User:Xenophrenic's repeated jabs at me, but in light of English being my third language --Jobas

"Racism" is a very strong charge; thank you for apologizing for the misuse of it. I suspected it might have been a language issue. When I questioned your comprehension of the sources you were citing, I suspected a language problem then as well -- that is why I kept mentioning "English". I'm sorry that you felt "jabbed at", but when you repeatedly claimed that I hadn't cited any sources, after I cited many (including one you introduced), my responses grew a little terse. Please don't take it personally.

Xenophrenic's comments were unwarranted and possibly xenophobic --Jobas

Xenophobic? Seriously? You are doing it again. Are you aware what Xenophobic means in English? Facepalm Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic on articles pertaining to atheism and religion. I've had to deal with this character on CfD and he has been nothing less than a migraine. He's repeatedly edited my comments and reverted me when I restored what I had to say, including concerns that he was canvassing other editors to the discussion. His history of tendentious and battleground editing warrant nothing less than this. Eliko007 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to call for a topic ban for "this character", Eliko007, you should at least provide valid reasoning. As has already been detailed above, I haven't edited or reverted your comments at all, except to replace blatant personal attacks ("serious accusations about a fellow editor's behavior without substantiating evidence") with the "RPA" template. As for canvassing editors to the discussion, of course I did, as I was instructed to at WP:CfD to do so: It may also be helpful to post a message on the talkpage of a related article, and I was careful to "comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Now contrast that to your totally inappropriate canvassing (e.g.; here, and here and here) where you disparage another editor in your non-neutral canvass message. It is true that I have a history (over a decade) of doing a lot of article improvement editing in controversial "battleground" topics, so I am used to editors trying to eliminate from the discussion those with whom they disagree. Do you have any actual legitimate reasons to suggest a topic ban on a fellow editor, or are you one of those editors trying to silence an editor presenting a reliably sourced opposing viewpoint? I see your account has been around for less than 50 days, with even fewer article edits, so perhaps this should be chalked up to inexperience? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I do not want to disagree with Ad Orientem, but I take a slightly different view: I do not believe any line was crossed by calling out a comment as racist, the comment was a terrible low blow and "xenophobic" (I looked it up, Xenophrenic) is not a bad word to describe it. At the very least "is that Arabic?" is pejorative to an extent that I really don't want this editor around, esp. if they refuse to accept responsibility for their words. And I have more things to say, but none of them are proper for polite company. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Drmies - I'm afraid I have to call you on your fake misdirected outrage there. Is this payback for me helping to vote you on to the Arbitration committee? In all of our interactions (whether amiable or in disagreement - we've done both), when have you ever known me to exhibit even the slightest racism or xenophobia? As I already explained above, "is that Arabic?" was me conveying to Jobas that his comments were unintelligible. You can rightly accuse me of being a little testy and snarky at most, but when you say "'is that Arabic' is pejorative to an extent that I really don't want this editor around", I have to call bullshit, if you'll pardon my French. (Ack! Racism!) Jobas claims to speak four languages, which IMO is remarkable, and frankly he holds up rather well in English Wikipedia debates and discussions. But his arguments were becoming indecipherable, for example, "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews", which is Greek to me. (Crap - there's that nasty racism yet again!) I don't think it is unfair for me to expect a little competence from my fellow Wikipedia editors when they are arguing with me over what a source says. And there is a lot of easily confused nuance in the sources we're discussing. I'm with you that racist commentary should be called out without hesitation - legitimately racist commentary - but your "slightly different view" is uncharacteristically way off the mark here, Drmies. I take full responsibility for my words, of course - no idea why you would suggest otherwise. And as offense was never my intent, I've no problem redacting or striking comments that some perceive as ill-worded. But I'll not accept frivolous mischaracterizations of racism or xenophobia. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Nothing frivolous about it. It was a comment which sounds racist, xenophobic, etc. "Is that Arabic" is as much like "pardon my French" as "look at my African-American" is like "I have a dream". So drop the patronizing "fake" and "crap racism again". When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Knock it off, Drmies. You can't call a fellow editor's comments xenophobic or racist, then tell them to "stop digging" when they object to your baseless, clueless attack. "French" and "English" and "Greek" and "Arabic" are all LANGUAGES in the context in which I've used them, and your tortured contortions to portray my comments as "xenophobic" are out of line. I'm the editor who gets attacked and dragged to drama boards (and an ArbCom) for calling out racism, remember? There is more I could say, but I see you have now walked back your attack in your comment below, from "Racism/xenophobia" to "linguistic privilege" to mere "making fun". Better, but still inaccurate. My comments were reciprocal sarcasm and snark, born from a frustrating history with this particular editor. "Patronizing" - Pffffft. If you want to imagine racist motivations where none exist, please keep your fantasies to yourself. Respectfully, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orietem has done the most comprehensive work so far, I'd say at least $10 worth, and I only have $.02 to offer. The offending comment has passed, and perhaps this discussion here will show Xenophrenic that their words aren't as innocuous as they seem--or that they cannot get away with low blows such as those. Whether it was racist or xenophobic or otherwise linguistically privileged is besides the point: if a user isn't fluent in English you can tell them that, but what you cannot do is make fun of it. It's really that simple.

  I have not looked into their edits so I cannot comment on whether it's specific topic areas that trigger specific responses: I leave that to Ad Orientem's judgment, in which I have faith (Ad O., I don't see this getting up to ArbCom level: we have not yet adjusted "normal" means--and don't you miss RfC/U?). What I do know is that it's too late for blocking either editor; that would be punitive. What I also know is that we should not be afraid to block for completely uncollegial comments. Those comments have a chilling effect and deter editors from sticking around and improving themselves and our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, when you put it that way. I will try to be more circumspect and polite in conveying to my fellow editors that what they are saying is unintelligible to me; even while they are pelting me with a barrage of false allegations and rudeness of their own. I should be able to demonstrate more patience. I will take your advice on board. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have refrained from putting in my 2 cents worth until this point, because it would probably just give Flyer22 Reborn another person to accuse me of being a master or puppet of(woah we both use the letter a, here and here, we have both encountered the topic of religion here and here, and if the names xenophrenic and petergstrom were variables that represented 57 and 60, then there would be a 3 different , 3 sides to a triangle, illuminati confirmed.) However I will note that I have yet to have a pleasant encounter with User:Jobas. Although this may partially be due to my own aggressive behavior, I think he could have handled it better. Furthermore, although I commend Jobas for learning and editing in so many languages, I question wether, as it causes comprehension issues, language compromises his ability to edit. He has also demonstrated a POV bias, all the while accusing me of a POV bias. He gives undue weight to sources that are only partially relevant when Christianity is seen in a beneficial light, but when I condense he claims censorship, to a hypocritical extent. Xenophrenic, I think is not racist, however the terms he used to describe Jobas's english do demonstrate self control issues(although I'm not one to really speak about that). The "is that arabic" is not discrimination based on race, nor is is xenophobia. Although not very respectful, it was not racism. A claim or racism, is equally as bad. Racism is a very very charged term, and even basic english speakers understand the negative connotations it commands. I think that although xenophrenic may have been disrespectful with language comments(some of which I have made myself in the past), he neither maliciously manipulated the system into pushing the consensus to his side, nor did he disparage an editor because of a preconceived bias. Petergstrom (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am going to disagree with Ad Orientem in one respect. I do not believe that Xenophrenic's post to the Talk:Atheism page was canvassing. It was neutrally phrased, and unless you believe that every editor who watches Talk:Atheism is likely to !vote in a particular way, it was not targeted either. You only have to look at that talk page to see that. Also, the editors who presumably came from Talk:Atheism did not !vote in the same manner, which sort of proves the point. I cannot support a block for that partuclar issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Some responses to comments above: As far as I can tell this seems to be where we are. The nature of Xenophrenic's comment to Jobas seems edgy at best and Drmies seems convinced it goes beyond that. At the very least one would hope that Xenophrenic would be more restrained in their manner of communicating with other editors. But we do not seem to be of one mind yet on whether or not his comment was racist. Also there is no consensus at the moment on the charge of canvassing and in any case the alleged offenses are stale. From my perspective that is now a dead issue. This leaves the question of POV and tendentious editing for which I believe there is evidence for both parties. The question then is, are topic bans in order? At the moment I support a topic ban for Xenophobic from the subjects of Atheism and Religion broadly construed. I think I would also support albeit weakly a topic ban for Jobas for the subject of religious persecution. Conceding some necessary exceptions, I'm not a huge fan of indefinite sanctions so I'd include the possibility of their asking the community that the TBans be lifted after two years conditional on no history of POV or other forms of obviously disruptive editing. Eliko007 seems to support a TBan for Xenophrenic and Petergstrom supports a TBAn for Jobas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

I am striking part of my last comment. I think I misread an earlier post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem It should be noted that User:Petergstrom is currently facing a topic ban on articles related to medicine and religion, broadly construed, due to tendentious editing, houding, and possible sockpuppetry. His edits have included inserting false information that states that both Moses (diff) and Jesus (diff) had paranoid schizophrenia, in addition to numerous other problematic issues.--Jobas (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I misread his earlier comment anyway. This discussion is getting long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I was on the edge on the Jobas TBan, however continued his poor characterisation of my edits, which I have explained many times is incorrect(with no response) is disconcerting. It shows lack of insight. Support Topic ban for Jobas in religionPetergstrom (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for Xenophrenic, as his contentious, POV editing will almost certainly continue until it is forcibly stopped. Jobas has not reached the level of a topic ban, but is advised to tone it down. Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• I've been observing this dispute since it caught my attention shortly after being opened, and for me the bottom line is: ^what Drmies said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Some unbiased, updated Conclusions and Recommendations

This ANI report was filed as an appeal to administrators to firmly instruct User:Jobas to refrain from calling editors racist, and to refrain from bad-faith accusations of POV canvassing of specific editors. It is common knowledge that anyone posting comments at this drama board is subject to scrutiny as well. With that in mind, here is where we are so far::

Incivility

• User:Jobas has apologized for the accusation of "racism", citing the use of an improper word and the fact that English isn't his native language. Jobas has also, however, nonetheless taken offense at Xenophrenic's "jabs" at his language use. Xenophrenic concedes he responded with unnecessarily provocative and impolite comments, and he sincerely apologizes for them and won't repeat that conduct.

Canvassing

• Four editors have now canvassed for attendance to the CfD. Consensus is that User:Jobas pinged several like-minded editors to the discussion, in violation of WP:CANVASS. User:Eliko007 included disparaging comments about an editor in his canvass messages here, here, and here, in violation of WP:CANVASS. They should both be admonished not to do so again. User:Ad Orientem posted policy-compliant notices at 5 locations, although reposting a redundant second message at the Christianity board seems excessive. Xenophrenic posted a policy-compliant notice at the article Talk page associated with the discussion subject (Atheist). Ad Orientem has alleged that Xenophrenic's canvass message was "selective" when placed at the atheism Talk page, contrary to apparent consensus:

Black Kite: I do not believe that Xenophrenic's post to the Talk:Atheism page was canvassing. It was neutrally phrased, and unless you believe that every editor who watches Talk:Atheism is likely to !vote in a particular way, it was not targeted either. [75]

Rhododendrites ^talk: I would like to address the accusations of canvassing that run through this thread. As far as I can tell, they're based on a message at Talk:Atheism. This is very clear cut not canvassing according to that very page (WP:CANVASS), which explicitly allows for notifications at "The talk page of one or more directly related articles." [76]

THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓: I'm sure we both know full well that Xenophrenic is not canvassing, and it is, in fact, the most transparent way of going about bringing attention to this quite off-the-radar discussion. [77]

jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}: Notice on Talk:Atheism counts as "appropriate notification: The talk page of one or more directly related articles". [78]

Martin of Sheffield: ... indeed Xenophrenic's edit is calm and neutral (requesting "Informed pro & con input based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources"). [79]

BAN-able editing conduct? (!)

• User:Ad Orientem has suggested that Xenophrenic be indefinitely topic banned from both the subjects of atheism and religious persecution broadly construed because of "very aggressive editing on the subject of atheism, and in particular its alleged involvement in acts of religious persecution." Really? Yet Ad Orientem says he is "not going to post diffs, there are just too many". Calling for a topic ban based on no diffs and no discussion of alleged ban-able behavior? I must call foul-play, Ad Orientem. I realize that you are new to this Admin role, but you have to realize that what you are doing is out of process. You generously gave "Full Disclosure" that you had an "unpleasant" experience with me. That's Full Disclosure? Didn't you leave out the part where you secretly colluded to have Jobas join a lynch mob against me? Didn't you leave out the part where you were advising Jobas on a more efficient way to try to get me sanctioned? Don't you think the people reading this deserve to know that, based on our discussion just above, the reason you consider our interaction "unpleasant" is not because of my editing behavior after all, but because of your ideology? There is a reason why Jobas pinged you to the deletion discussion, Ad Orientem, and I commend you for not running to join him there - but let's be honest, you are as much of a belligerent in this matter as Jobas is. The fact is, I don't "very aggressively edit" atheism or religion articles any more than I edit all controversial articles on politics, genocide, protest movements, etc., and I think you know that. The reason you haven't provided diffs to substantiate your allegation of egregious editing behavior is because they don't exist (or have long ago been addressed in other venues). This is the ANI drama board, where anyone can get a clown-car full of pitchfork wielding rabble to give their "me too!" by just mentioning the word "ban", even without presenting evidence.

Arbitration Committee case?

• I agree with Drmies that ArbCom is a premature step for addressing editor behavior in this matter. But I strongly agree with John Carter that we should have ArbCom review our "Category:Persecution of XXX/ by YYY" categories and determine which, if any, are good for the project to keep and which should be removed from the project. Or is that out of ArbCom's scope? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Unbiased". 2600:1017:B020:6D0F:FA99:2F6A:2535:4B30 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy

Because of his own particular political bias -- which is abundantly clear in his editing history -- User:Motsebboh has been continually editing this article against the consensus determined on the talk page, where his view is opposed by at least 3 editors. The facts are quite clear from the article's editing history [80] and the talk page discussion Talk:Center for Security Policy#The first sentence of the "Controversy" section . . .. The editor's talk page history is also instructive, such as here, where he attempted to denigrate the Southern Poverty Law Center. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it's my understanding that this article falls under the "American Politics since 1932" discretionary sanction regime, and I've personally notified User:Motsebboh of that fact, but it hasn't stopped him from ignoring consensus and editing per his POV. Given this, I also (obviously) am aware that the article is a DS article, so if my behavior on the article or talk page has been disruptive per that DS, I acknowledge that admins are authorized to deal with me according to those rules, which also (obviously) pertain to Motsebboh. I'm simply sick of his continuing bullshit, and wish this to be dealt with, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Gee, I thought I had already responded here but I must have somehow erased it rather than saved it. To repeat: Good, I probably would have brought a complaint against Beyond My Ken soon. His sins are many; he consistently tries to exercise ownership of the article in his bull-headed manner. He claims that my fairly modest, proposed edits are a "whitewash" of the subject. He has displayed extraordinary bias against the aticle's subject as seen here: [81]. He eagerly but falsely claims consensus for his views by convincing himself that the only other editor in the discussion, Dr.Fleischman agrees with him when he clearly hasn't. He then immediately edits the article as he pleases and claims that my protests run against consensus. He reverts any edit I make in the article out of spite, even when they are obvious corrections or improvements as seen here: [82] and here: [83]. He has also taken to stalking my edits by suddenly finding interest in two rather obscure articles, Carol Downer and Mike Burke (journalist), which he had never before edited. In short, he's behaved very, very badly. Motsebboh (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this to be rather revealing. El_C 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like classic WP:CPUSHing (perhaps escalated enough that the "civil" portion no longer applies, but the behavior still fits the description, so let's call it WP:PUSH). Neither editor is behaving well, but one is much more clearly editing with a POV, which I see as a far more serious problem (and a much more serious threat to the project). Mojoworker (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As the third wheel in the talk page discussion and a direct observer to this nastiness, I think both editors could use a block as a lesson on civility:

• Motsebboh:

• "DISINGENUOUS"
• "With those kinds of sentiments openly expressed perhaps you should recuse yourself from participating here."
• (In response to "deliberately editing against talk page consensus is a pretty serious thing to do"): "But not as seriously bad as being you."

• Beyond My Ken:

• "OMG! KPFA!!! He must be an out-and-out Commie, maybe even a Commie-faggot-junkie!!!"
• "I'm not really interested in your opinions about anything, including the sourcing, since you really just want the material to disappear, in your zeal to push your POV."
• "What I am going to do is to totally ignore anything else you might have to say, as editors such as yourself, who sacrifice accuracy and neutrality for ideological ends, disgust me."

(I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm another third wheel. Both ought to stay off the TP and away from the article for a while. Take a break and ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to stay away, but WP:3O is not appropriate, as there is already a consensus on the talk page. I also note that you just made some changes to the article, but did not touch the consensus material. Does that mean that you, also, agree with the current consensus version? In any case, I'm taking the article off my watchlist, under the assumption that you and DrFleischman and @Fiddlestyx:, and others, I hope, will continue to watch over it and take action against any future attempts to whitewash the article. BMK out! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC) @Fyddlestix: Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also be more than happy to have Beyond My Ken stay away. But, seriously, what I would suggest is that we each be banned from the article for a period of time, say a month, but in separate consecutive months. I'd be willing to serve my sentence either first or second. That way we could each work on the article without being provoked by the other. Motsebboh (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• It sounds like the parties might be agreeable to an interaction ban. Perhaps an admin can weigh in and potentially implement? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to support a several (3-6) month restriction from editing the article for both of them. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Mojoworker, thanks for the response. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll note that some of the back-and-forth wasn't just about Center for Security Policy. Diffs: [84], [85], [86], [87]. It seems like this was just where a simmering dispute happened to erupt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to burden anyone with one of those threads where an editor answers every comment - I found them annoying when I come across them, and I'm certain others do as well, so let me make this one comment and then I'll attempt to refrain from further input.

The community can, of course, impose whatever sanctions it deems appropriate, but I would point out that this incident -- which was incited by Mottsebboh's removal of sourced material from Center for Security Policy without prior discussion -- is the first time I have come across this editor, at least as far as I can remember, so I'm not aware that we have any previous history. Yes, after that edit, I did indeed look through that editor's contributions, and, yes, that was where I formed my firm opinion that he is POV editor, and yes, I did revert some of his more egregious edits in other articles, but that is all part of this single incident. My experience has been that interaction bans are generally not considered until there is a pattern over some significant period of time of disputes between two editors, so (as far as I am able to be dispassionate about this situation), it does not seem to me to be an appropriate sanction at this juncture. Should there be additional disputes between us in the future, that would, of course, change the situation.

I have already said that I have no plan to edit the CSP article again. If Mottsebboh would make the same pledge, I think that would be sufficient. Again, I don't believe a formal topic ban from the page is necessary, since one can be instituted if either of us edits against our word. But, whatever you folks decide. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Motsebboh, your response? Are you willing to agree not to edit Center for Security Policy again? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

He already did, which I admit surprised me. Is that edit one (either of) you consider un/contentious? El_C 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure who you're asking here, but if it was me, I do not think the edit you linked to was a problem. I'd say that it improved the article. I am confused, though - where in the edit summary does M say that he's not going to edit the article any more? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good. So long as it's noncontroversial. No, he said: "I would suggest is that we each be banned from the article for a period of time, say a month, but in separate consecutive months" (Italics is what I overlooked). I still don't see why you can't both just stick to discussing the material—yes, even with everything that has happened. He is using the talk page in preparation for his next edit, which is a good sign. El_C 09:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I know myself better than that, and it really sticks in my craw that an obvious POV editor is allowed to run free on Wikipedia, skewing articles to meet his ideology. If I went back to editing the article, sooner or later it would become a problem. No, I know it's best if I just stop, and leave stewardship of the article's integrity to other editors. That's what I said I would do, and I plan to stick to it. If M doesn't want to do the same (saying we'd edit on alternate months is ludicrous, and not at all the same thing), well, that's his choice, not mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You know yourself best. But I still don't see why it has to become a problem, if you only engage the material (and not the editor, same goes for him) directly at the article talk page, and try reaching consensus. I encourage you to do so. The world is filled with 2nd chances. Good luck. El_C 11:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption by a couple of editors here that because I edit politically contentious articles I edit them in a decidedly biased manner. Of course, all editors have political viewpoints that to some degree will affect their editing. The test is whether in their selection of sources and use of those sources they make a scrupulous effort to neutrally follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think I do. Rather than citing the articles I've edited as a sign of bias, try citing specific edits that go "beyond the pale" of what would be considered reasonable.

As for the resolution of the issue here, I'm willing to accept the verdict. Naturally, I think my suggestion is a pretty good one but it's not up to me to decide. Motsebboh (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Auapc – disruptive editing

The user Auapc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told a, whole bunch of times what they need to change and they are still at it while not reacting in any shape or form. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries and talk page warnings from Carmaker1

Could some of this user's edit summaries and talk page contributions be reviewed please? I think they are not in accordance with WP:FAITH, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, therefore creating a hostile environment for other contributors.

Here are my specific concerns from recent edits:

• [88] Edit summary is aggressive and insulting
• [89] Edit summary dismisses someone's contributions as stupid
• [90] Edit summary disregards editors contribution on the basis of their previous edits
• [91] Edit summary accusation of "severe WP:VANDALISM", for an edit that does not seem at all malicious
• [92] Edit summary unnecessarily aggressive and accusers others of misleading readers (model year is a commonly used to date cars)
• [93] Edit summary is a personal attack.
• [94] Edit summary accuses other contributors of deliberately misleading readers
• [95] High level vandalism warning a minor disagreement about a fact, with no suggestion of malice in the edit [96]
• [97] As above, warning for this edit [98]
• [99] As above. Not a high level warning this time, but still no evidence of malice in the edit [100]

1292simon (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone probably in the same industry as Carmaker1 (IP may give it away...), he's technically right on all counts. He's being accurate on the real world timing as model years do not reflect calendar years. Eg, just about everything involving Model Year 2017 was baked in by late 2016 and all announcements/reveals/press releases were done last year. Rarely nowadays does a carmaker release a model year in the same calendar year. Only recent one I am aware of is the 2nd Generation Jeep Compass being actually released in 2017 (and that's due to internal delays). I believe he's getting exasperated explaining this over. And over. And over. 129.9.75.190 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, even if it's technically incorrect, it's still pretty understandably a good faith mistake, and sheer volume of good faith mistakes isn't an exception to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is rather interesting. As 129.9.75.190 so nicely explained, I am indeed exasperated, but it is still not an excuse to behave brashly. I do see that 1292simon only seems to be bringing this up, because of the warnings I left on their page and one edit summary. I will be honest and say that I was offended by the omission of insider information on design work that I contributed to the E90 and F30 BMW 3-Series articles by 1292simon, that would otherwise not be common knowledge nor even accessible to the general public most of the time (due to it sometimes being seen as privileged trade information).

Wikipedia guidelines understandably require, in-depth background information to be verified through cited sources, in order to avoid "original research". What I have encountered on-and-off for years (as both an engineering student and engineer), is the occasional resistance from a few editors (out of many that are pleasant) that are not willing to work with me and having their own hostile behaviour remaining unchecked by administrators. Whether it concerns music, geography, or automotive topics, I have always been particular about submitting information that is accurate to the best of my knowledge. What I do find odious and contentious is User: 1292simon's attempts to paint recent contributions of mine as 99% hostile (merely in response), which is somewhat dishonest and rather reaching. The only subjects of contention are my few edit summaries that highlight emotion. More than half of these given examples come across as deliberate mischaracterizations.

I am most focused on proving development information on every automobile page on Wikipedia, due to how information proliferates around the internet from here and can be a source on how each vehicle came to be. An accompanying model history also helps with this, as a useful reference for readers. The problem with submitting information with the proper citations, is how one keeps running into many dead links, as nowadays there seems to be a poor case of maintaining archives of old webpages or sources across the internet. Design and development is often hard to link to, sometimes relating to WP: PAYWALL or it not being linkable to a URL.

I am times exasperated with how poorly written, partisan text is used in articles meant to be encyclopedia pages and no one else seems to collectively fix these issues. Or better yet the fact, there are conflicting issues with many unregistered editors at times taking liberty to deliberately tamper with dates (for mysterious reasons unbeknownst to me) and tarnish the legitimacy of articles. The fact that between maybe User: OSX on occasion and User: Stepho-wrs helpfully catching these issues, it is much of the time myself having to revert such date tampering or correct existing misinformation, that often creates glaring contradictions in articles. When it becomes a tiring back & forth pattern that no one else is picking up on, and not even trying to put a stop to such vandalism or unintentional disruptive editing, it becomes an unnecessarily stressful ordeal to be fixing it by myself over and over. Especially when I discover these glaring errors or "bad changes" weeks to months down the road and no else bothered to intervene.

If you study the edit history of pages such as Infiniti QX80 and Nissan Armada, you'll see what I am referring to. The fact that I requested for page protection for both articles and it was denied, despite the edit histories showing significant abuses by IP-switching vandals, explains what some of us have to deal with in regards to being frustrated and overwhelmed. Many people from automotive forums and comment sections, as well as that of journalists in automotive media often, misrepresent vehicle timelines. Quite often, this is based on not-so-ironclad U.S. model years and often from inaccurately written timelines left uncorrected on Wikipedia. When a 2018 model year vehicle can go on sale January 2, 2017 and run through December 31, 2018, I do not want to be seeing text in an article that misleadingly describes that very vehicle as "Jaguar XX was introduced in 2018." The fact that I have tried to correct this problem and get ignored or receive little to no assistance often, can be frustrating when my useful contributions are reverted repeatedly. I agree very much in regards to WP: BITE, but I really do ask that administrators really take these vandalism issues seriously, as it makes contributing pointless if it keeps getting undone by the same parties endlessly.---Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

complete revert of several edits without constructive discussion by User:Alexbrn

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

---

User:Alexbrn reverted my edits on the extremely biased Big Pharma conspiracy theory here / and here without even getting into a discussion about the matter at hand. Besides, one of his/her first reactions were quite upsettingly unfriendly. Are we possibly dealing with a conflict of interest in this game? Given the references I had gathered, it should be evident that "big pharma" is neither a holdall for the entire pharmaceutical industry, nor are we dealing with a mere conspiracy theory (a notion that is both narrowing and insulting to those who discuss it). Besides, it came as a not-so-mild surprise that big pharma companies have obviously so far never been listed concisely together in a table, like the one I assembled for the neutral article. How can this be deleted offhandedly, without any factual discussion, I wonder? -- Kku 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

1) How is this not a content dispute? 2) Please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You made a page move of Big Pharma to Big Pharma (disambiguation) and created a new article at Big Pharma, and you redirected Big Pharma conspiracy theory to your new article. Both of those actions were contentious, and anyone is allowed to revert them without consulting you first. The onus now is on you to start a discussion about your desired changes and wait and see if you get a consensus. There is no admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Though, on reviewing Kku's recent edits there may be - this seems to be part of a pattern of POV-warfare including recent edits such as link (sourced to the Daily Mail!) making points about the evils of "Big Pharma". Maybe the WP:BOOMERANG needn't be thrown just yet but complaining to WP:ANI straight away over this (without warning me) isn't great. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

this edit note is worrisome: it is a wild distortion to just talk about it as a conspiracy theory, cutpaste and this Talk comment shows a lack of understanding of the stuff they are editing so fiercely about. This is not going to end well for Kku. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am deeply disappointed and worried to see that it appears entirely OK to not only 1. revert work done by other authors for whatever reason but also 2. ENTIRELY PURGE ANY CONTRIBUTION that I have made INCLUDING my ADDITIONS ON THE TALK PAGE. Sorry for yelling, I do not normally do this. But this demeanor appears so entirely at will and focused on complete silencing that I wonder what reasons still founded in the WP code of conduct could motivated the involved users to act like this. I have never, so far, witnessed anything in WP which is so close to censorship. I repeat: there was not a trace of discussion on the content level - I was not given a chance. How can I not turn to this board, when I am denied basic editor rights? How are some editors more priviledged in being allowed to evade substantial discussion altogether (something that was quite rudely demanded by them of me) Administrators, bureaucrats, if all of this does not suffice not alarm you, then WP is truely in a sad state. -- Kku (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where are your Talk page contributions "purged"? Who are the "involved users" responding here? I note you did not respond to the discussion at Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theory but came here instead. As for privilege, you appear to be asking for your edits to be accorded some special status of being "revert-proof"; this is a sign of WP:OWNERSHIP, an actual rather than an imagined kind of behaviour problem. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Alexbrn got put through this. This discussion has probably gone past its expiration date, and should probably be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing, vandalism, gaming the system

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

---

Editor Zakariayps is very disruptive and continues to vandalise and try to game the system despite ample warning from editors such as here, here, here, here, here,  here and here. Example of vandalism here and here, here and here. Clear attempt to game Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection on this page.Kzl55 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

English/British category issue

Could somebody please mass revert recent edits by User:2.220.230.237, like this, and this which switch articles from more specific "England/ English" categories to less-specific "United Kingdom/ British" ones? I seem to remember we've had this problem before, but it's late here and I can't easily find details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

British is (or should be) the correct usage. But it's kinda causing inconsistency by changing only English, while not changing Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please come back when you've got consensus for deleting a the "England/ English", and equivalnet, categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a consensus on that. Merely suggesting that the IP should be blocked, if he's only changing English to British. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless his national identity is in some way covered in the article/relevant to him particularly (A Church of England Bishop would be categorised English rather than British, much as a Church in Wales would be 'Welsh', or a footballer who played for England and so on) British is the default term. This does ultimately tend to discriminate against the English but then the English are less likely to make a fuss about their nationality than the Welsh, Scots, Irish etc. Afzal for example as far as I can see has no clear national preference, a quote from one of the sources used in his article "Of his own cultural identity, Afzal says: “There's no tension between being British and being a Muslim. On the contrary. You don't love your first child any less if you have a second.”" So switching him from English to British is not an issue. Especially since his job was for CPS, which is not 'England only'. Unless the category changes are inappropriate (switching say Sean Connery or Charlotte Church to British) this is not a problem. The Priyanga Burford example also has no weight behind it. No indication she identifies as 'English'. From personal experience UK-born citizens of Asian descent are less likely to divide along archaic nationalistic lines that have no relevance to them, being 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation immigrants, preferring to describe as British. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"British is the default term" Really? Says who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be the default term, as neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are sovereign states. Not sure why there's usually such a resistance to usage of British or United Kingdom throughout Wikipedia, but that's another topic & not meant for here. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Combination of anti-imperialism and UK nationalism. Lots of people are proud to be British however. WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and British_people#Classification are required reading in this area. (Which is why I was not surprised in the two examples Pigs used above, both were Asian. Which outside of areas like sport would be unlikely to class themselves as English in the first place) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the IP's category changes to BLP's, it appears most of them are 1st or 2nd gen immigrants, the section of society *least* likely to class themselves English rather than British. So absent a reason why they should be 'English' (sport, particular English association of some sort) I dont see a problem here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: did you miss the fucking great notice saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." DuncanHill (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You can cut that right out - there's a right way and a wrong way of letting someone know they didn't do something. Come on! -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Cut what right out? Asking someone if they missed the notice? DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • You know what I meant, the tone of that was just entirely uncalled for.. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Calling for a mass-revert of an editors edits without contacting them first, or notifying them of the discussion, on frankly flimsy grounds? He was lucky 'fucking great notice' was the only salty language used. (It is a fucking great big notice). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Pigsonthewing is aware of his failure but has not yet informed the editor in question. DuncanHill (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • And @Samtar: no, I don't know what you mean. It is a fucking great notice, and apparently Pigsonthewing missed it. I'm sure he wouldn't deliberately have failed to follow the rules. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, personally insulted me and other users, and already has a 3RR Violation

Editor User:176.23.1.95 has received a 3RR violation and has filed false accusations on me for a 3RR violation basically calling me a puppet to another user which led to the page being protected (Yemeni Civil War). Where we could discuss the topic of dispute respectfully instead of having an edit war which led to a vote where he insulted me and another user saying we were puppets to the main person who had his debate with because we didn't vote for his side and canceled our votes on the topic. Not only that but the person that was moderating the debate and vote had warned him to stop his personal attacks on us but he has refused to cooperate. He continually oversteps his boundaries and is just continually looking for problems instead of looking for common ground that everyone can agree on. Therefore I ask on you to please make Wikipedia a less hostile place and do on him a topic ban that will not allow him to edit anything about Yemen due to his lack of knowledge and rudeness to me and other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.74 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your report is unsubstantiated ad hominem. Use your energy on cooperating with me on making a consensus, instead of attacking my person with this report on a flawed basis. Read WP:BRD for understanding how to handle dispute resolutions, especially the WP:BRD#Discuss section. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Smyser-Bair House

23:03, 6 February 2017 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted page Smyser-Bair House (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of yorkinn.info/points-of-interest.html and numerous others)

I dont understand why they deleted it, I just don't agree with it. 1) I need to tag the photographs as being my property. 2) we need to make it clear to them that I (the owner of the house, owner of the website, and submitter of the wiki article, am the author/owner of the language/content. Once they understand that, they should be able to turn it back on, even if they suggest we delete some of the details (like all the rooms and such). I'd rather have just the history, custodians, etc. than nothing at all. If we have to delete the room descriptions and points of interest, I can live with that.

I want to get back the page to make edit again.Please give me the oppourtunity.Smyser-Bair House (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Eric D Godman

I am sorry I think you typed it into the wrong tab or misunderstood something if you need me to further explain just ask.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.17.74 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC+9)

Smyser-Bair House, we cannot restore the article on Wikipedia as it contains text copied from other sites. Would you like a copy emailed to you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Smyser-Bair House. Since your user name and the name of the article you submitted are identical, I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Although conflict-of-interest editing is not something expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia, it is something that is highly discourage because it can often lead to more serious problems. Moreover, your choose of username also does not seem to comply with Wikipedia's policy against promotional user names, so you might want to consider changing it. I have added some links to your user talk page where you can find out more information on how to do this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The text was copied from two different web sites. If you actually own the text and the web site, then we need you to prove that the text is released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licenses. The simplest way to do this is to attach a copyright notice to your website to say that all text is available under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licenses, and specify any attribution you would like. More complex ways involve you proving that you are the real own by email by WP:OTRS and read WP:PERMIT. User:Smyser-Bair House was doing the right thing in using WP:AFC, so that others would check if the topic was suitable. I think the topic is suitable, and some of the text is suitable. Some other text needs a rewrite to be encyclopedic style. If you do change the copyright on your web site, let us know and the material can be restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Violence threat?

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

---

diff. It's badly worded, so I'm not 100% sure about this... Adam9007 (talk)

Hard to say, but it's certainly disruptive. DarkKnight2149 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what to make of that, but I did block the IP. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've revdeld the edit out of an abundance of caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sent to Emergency --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Although we can't be 100% sure if it was a threat, it was indeed wise to not take any chances in a situation like this. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Help please: Dealing with filibustering at WP:COMICS

I'm at wit's end with this disruption. We have a serious issue that needs to be discussed regarding how to handle article on cross-media character franchises. Unfortunately, we've hit a roadblock, as User:Darkknight2149 has been filibustering/WP:BLUDGEONing each discussion. WP:IDHT and straw manning are amongst his most frequent behaviour issues. His goal appears to be to prevent the discussion from happening at all—he rejects all proposed solutions, and the idea that solutions are needed at all. The current discussion was meant to drum up ideas before presenting them to the wider community, perhaps at the Village Pump. But the discussion ins't even being allowed to happen.

A typical example (of a wide variety):

1. Darkknight2149: You said there must be multiple articles for the character.
2. Me: No, I offered that as a solution if the editor didn't want to refocus the article. There was no demand for multiple articles.
3. Darkknight: Goto 1.

... over and over and over, until utter exhaustion. Putting words into my mouth, ignoring direct questions, posting links to diffs that don't say what DK purports, and more general WP:NOTHERE behaviour preventing us all from finding potential solutions to the problem under discussion.

We've been here recently over WP:CANVASSing allegations. The discussion closed with DK being told he canvassed, and my mass-pinging in response also constituted canvassing. The related AfD discussion was closed, but before it was, DK returned to it and repeatedly denied the canvassing, even after three (?) uninvolved editors showed up to assert he in fact had, including the admin who closed the ANI discussion. Two weeks later he posted an inappropriate message on the talk page of one of these editors, and this on his user page. This sort of WP:IDHT behaviour is typical of the rest of the discussions over several user, project, and article talk pages.

We have a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. It won't be dealt with as long as one editor is intent on drowning it. I know I have a reputation for being less than polite, though nobody but Darkknight2149 has accused me of acting in bad faith. Here I'm trying to find a constructive solution rather than blowing my top again.

Help, please? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You have really shot yourself in the foot now. Ever since myself and Curly Turkey found ourselves at opposing ends of a discussion at Talk:Joker (comics), Curly Turkey has been uncivil. While at first, I tried to have a civilised discussion with this user, I have quickly found that that is something Curly Turkey would never allow. Essentially, throughout the entire argument (which continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) and at WP:COMICS ([101]), Curly Turkey has been trying to undermine my side of the discussion with blatant assumptions of bad faith, from WP:NOTHERE to accusations of "starting dramah". It seems that pretty much everyone who disagrees with him is apparently a disruptive user ([102]), and he pretty much revealed his intentions with this edit (in a discussion about me that was meant to take place behind my back). This exchange is finally what drove this over the edge ([103], [104], [105], [106], [107]).

Turkey's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and general attitude are what's disruptive here. Ever since I first met him in 2015, he has had an attitude problem ([108]). A consensus can't be reached when every other word he makes is an accusation. It really needs to end. DarkKnight2149 04:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Take the above as an example of DK's style of discussion, particularly comments such as "he pretty much revealed his intentions with this edit". Please click through the link and try to figure out what "intentions" it reveals. His comments are loaded with such bizarre links. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they should click the links to get a look at your inappropriate behaviour. And your comment of bizarre links just reeks of your failure to get the point. You have been trying to undermine the discussion by inventing accusations since this discussion began, a massive violation of both WP:PA and WP:GOODFAITH. Good luck getting anyone beyond your petty WP:FACTION to defend you here. DarkKnight2149 04:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• More evidence of bad faith: DK has retaliated to this thread by posting an editwarring message. DK made the last revert there an hour ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I also recieved an edit warring warning, and make no mistake - You were very much involved. You already revealed your intentions with this damning exchange. DarkKnight2149 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • And it's playing out as I predicted, isn't it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is NOT a WP:BATTLEGROUND and it is certainly not about winning. DarkKnight2149 04:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • That's right. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • [shameless plug...] Nor is it about WP:WHINING. EEng 05:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Just defending myself. I'm being honest. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
              • Ugh. Lord knows I have frequently (?) disagreed with Curly Turkey, but he's right to remind me of that ANI closure and the subsequent fallout. I'm not expert when it comes to these two editors, but in this thread, if we have to determine a winner in the snark and uncollegiality contest, Turkey is clearly the loser. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I'm gonna recuse myself from !voting in any of the below proposals because my past interactions with both CT and DK are a matter of public record and if I was accused of bias ... well, the accuser would probably correct. That said, I urge the community to look into this dispute and not take the relative lack of diffs as an indication that both users are hiding something. I have seen the way CT deals with constant IDHT and filibustering, and I know for a fact that he has a very high tolerance for it (his early interactions with a certain retired user whom I won't name prove that); the fact that it has taken less than two months for this to come to ANI is therefore telling. I'll also say that DK is the last person who should be telling others to drop the stick when he showed up on my talk page 13 days after the fact and posted this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's because I wasn't on Wikipedia for 13 days, which you are well aware of and have even acknowledged. And all it takes is a quick look at Talk:Joker (comics) to see a very lack of tolerance to simple disagreement. Also, "bias"... DarkKnight2149 17:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed IBAN

This is a very messy situation all round. It's obvious that some measures need to be taken to stop the disruption occurring. As such, I would like to propose a two way IBAN. User:Curly Turkey and User:Darkknight2149 would be indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, either directly or by reverting edits from the other party. Any violation of this IBAN by either party will result in escalating blocks. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Question: how will an IBAN deal with the larger problem? DK is devoted to derailing the discussion. We need a solution that will also handle that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It removes the element of the other editor and gives the party being disruptive enough rope. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The simple solution would be to drop your incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. It's THAT simple. You're not interested in the simple solution. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm being polite now. Does this mean you'll stop saying I've said things I haven't? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I've already provided links to what you claim to have not said. And that condescending question proves what your uncivil intentions are here. DarkKnight2149 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • This doesn't sound like moving forward. We can't have a civil discussion if this kind of behaviour is what's to be expected. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: How is an iBAN going to work when we both have opposing strong positions in a valid debate? Go read where this all began at Talk:Joker (comics). I have tried to have a civilised conversation with Curly Turkey, but he has been uncivil from the start. This would all end if Turkey would just drop the incivility and have a clean discussion. Turkey is clearly unwilling to do so. DarkKnight2149 04:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Try to lose that WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and look at things as an outside observer would see them. You've had several editors and a previous ANI thread go against you. As I see things, it's either this, or a block. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A block won't solve anything—I provided a link above where he showed up at a user's to leave a "HAHAHAHA!" message two weeks after the ANI closed. From evidence such as this, I'm not convinced blocks or IBANs will improve the situtation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who said the block would have a fixed timeframe? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's extreme. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

So is the thing that got you two here. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You, Twitbook, have some explaining to do. A legit debate is NOT a battlefield. And Curly Turkey is the one making it uncivil. And this further proves that he's the one with the BATTLEGROUND mentality. DarkKnight2149 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm hoping to find a solution that will best facilitate the discussion being planned. I hope to find a non-disruptive solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support, specifically on the condition that Curly be the editor to disengage from comics talk pages where the two are having a spat. I read for instance this talk page, which seems home to completely civil discussions until Curly shows up. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If either of us is "having a spat", then that editor has broken the IBAN. You're not saying one editor gets to fight? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm saying that you two should not be the interacting at all, anywhere, but that Darkknight should not feel he has to avoid an article because you picked a fight with him there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • But I should have to avoid an article because DK might pick a fight with me? Are we forgetting "HAHAHAHA!"? This is hardly one-sided. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Curly Turkey will not agree with those terms. One of the main reason's that he is doing this is to undermine my side of the argument. And I have already elaborated on what that "HAHAHA" meant. Keep reaching for all you've got, Curly. DarkKnight2149 04:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • That's right—you explained that "HAHAHA" meant you reject the community's judgement that you canvassed. This is part of the problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • You still haven't dropped that? Everyone else has. Seriously, nobody is talking about that anymore. Now you're trying to bring that resolved and once heated debate back up. It's clear that you are reaching. DarkKnight2149 05:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
              • You've linked to the discussion about it on my talk page in this very discussion yourself. It's deeply tied to the ongoing issues, an example of what makes the discussion so frustrating. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is very clearly a content dispute, and all that the various disputants need to do is open up some form of official dispute resolution. It's clear to me that both parties love to fight and to perpetuate fighting (note that the OP did not produce even a single diff, or even an indication of or link to where the disputes[s} was taking place), and the fact that they are fighting each other is coincidental and immaterial. The solution, as always is not to fight, but to resolve, via WP:DR. Final note: If DK canvasses again in any form, he should be blocked (cc: Drmies). -- Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You are correct. This is indeed a content dispute, which is what I said above. However, I do not love to fight. In fact, I am very exasperated at this point. I tried to have a civil debate when this started at Talk:Joker (comics), but Curly Turkey was uncivil from the start. And his incivility is nothing new. DarkKnight2149 04:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It would be a content dispute if we were disagreeing about content. Rather, the discussion is being bludgeoned so the discussion about content cannot take place. If it's diffs you want, I can provide them, though it'll be tedious—it'd be better just to read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics# Assistance in developing content relating to individual characters across multiple articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No Curly, this is about content. I only showed up to that discussion to make a legit point regarding the content and that's what my discussion at Talk:Joker (comics) was about. As an uninvolved editor rightly pointed out above, it didn't get uncivil until you showed up and started making wild assumptions of bad faith because you disagreed with me. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That dispute is long over, and we've already been to ANI over it. We're talking about the current one at WP:COMICS that is explicitly about a cross-Project issue. Is it that you're carrying a grudge that you're behaving this way? I apologize for being impolite. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) x2 IBANS seldom work in this type of situation. If one or both parties can not get their acts together than a TBAN is less subject to gaming. This has gone long enough and caused enough disruption where it would probably be best for both parties to take 3-6 months off from the area of dispute, however it can be defined, and told if they start up somewhere else a long block would be in order (multiple weeks to couple of months). Jbh ^Talk 05:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)·
  • This could easily end if Curly Turkey just stop with the incivility. No seriously, it is that easy. It is the incivility and the invention of accusations from Curly to undermine my side of the discussion that have spiraled this entire situation out of control. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've apologized for being impolite already, and I've asked you quite a few times already to stop putting words into my mouth, etc. Will you promise? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I would agree to be more careful about quoting you (although I didn't intend on putting words in your mouth, there was obvious miscommunication, [109] in that discussion) IF we can drop the incivility and accusations, and try to get back to the content discussion. Although we disagree, we can hopefully reach a consensus if we discuss this in a civilised manner. Because, at the end of the day, I think we can both agree that content is what's important. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • My edit record bears this out. Proposal: no linking to who said what from before this thread. Let's move forward. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Other proposals

Hopefully we can get something that doesn't involve blocks or bans here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would propose that you both go and have a civil discussion and work out your differences in a collegial manner. If neither of you can do that then both should be topic banned from The Joker comics broadly construedfor four months so others can work. A strong indication of not being able to work together would be the two of you taking over this ANI thread sniping at each other like happened in the last one. Jbh ^Talk 05:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC) If the narrow Joker topic is not enough, per Curley Turkey below, then lets open it up to Comics broadly construed. I don't really care how you define the topic. Jbh ^Talk 05:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've proposed to move on. Waiting for a response. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to accept those terms, though it obviously won't work if Turkey doesn't also accept (not to suggest he won't). DarkKnight2149 05:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I should point out again that Joker isn't the locus of dispute. It's an issue that long predated the dispute there, so a proposal naming the "Joker" article misses the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about? This dispute started at Talk:Joker (comics) about Joker (character). Before that, this debate didn't exist. DarkKnight2149 05:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • *sigh* I've given you links to previous discussions about these things already. The heading of the discussion "Assistance in developing content relating to individual characters across multiple articles") makes it clear that this is not about Joker. It is a discussion about fictional characters in general, particularly those who appear in multiple media. This is the very basis of the discussion, and it's been going on for years. "Joker" is a single example of the issues raised. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
          • The disruption I've seen and that evidence has been presented for relates to The Joker but if you want it opened up... sure, comics, fictional characters... wherever you two are arguing about. I thought is would be best to have a narrowly focused TBAN but meh. Jbh ^Talk 05:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, I was hoping for a solution that would lead to keeping the discussion on topic, but I guess that's not what ANI's for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
              • ANI is about stopping disruption. If you want DR it is ===> thataway. You do know y'all can just drop this right now and go to DR, right? That would go a long way towards showing uninvolved editors that you two are at least willing to try to work through your issues. Jbh ^Talk 05:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'd suggest having an honest discussion on one of your talk pages to figure out a way the two of you can disagree with -- and fundamentally talk to -- each other without resorting to trading verbal blows ad infinitum. It's clear you two deeply distrust each other based on how you've interacted, so maybe you need to ask yourself and each other what you need to do to earn that trust, and really work at it if the goal is to work together. Alternatively, an interaction ban isn't going to work, but maybe limiting your interaction with each other is a better way. Frankly, you both make your points about the Joker matter early on, and the subsequent back-and-forth does not resolve your disagreements or make things clearer to other editors, so maybe you need to consider making your point once and leaving it at that. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What, actually resolving issues between editors? Whoa. I mean, whoa. GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is extremely difficult to "make your point" when another party keeps telling people you've made a different point. I'd oppose myself if I thought I were proposing what has been presented as "my position". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Someguy1221, User:I JethroBT, Softlavender, et alia, have we ever considered blocking a pair of editors from everything except each others talk pages so they have no choice but to talk things out? It worked for Papa-Lo and Shotta Sherrif; it might work on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) not to bring disputes to usertalk; they should only ever be discussed on article talk or project talk or DR board. They can either take this to heart, agree to that now, or not. And if they don't agree to that here, then it may be in their best interests (and in the interests of Wikipedia) to formally bar them from each other's talk page. Softlavender (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal disputes shouldn't be in article or article talk space. This is no longer a content dispute or, if it is, it's not about content. In a way I'm suggesting the opposite of what you're suggesting, below. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For me, this was always supposed to be about content, going all the way back to before I started talking to Curly. It spiraled out of control when all of the incivility and "you did this, I did that" came into the mix. DarkKnight2149 19:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I misread your question; I thought you were proposing a mutual user-talk ban, but you were proposing the opposite. Your mileage may vary, but in my career on Wikipedia, I've personally never seen two bickering editors of this sort of stripe resolve anything on user-talk. Bickering is the reason we have WP:DR, which provides neutral venues and formats for resolving disputes and maintaining civility and gaining feedback (especially when civility or being on-topic goes astray) from others. Softlavender (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Curly Turkey from all comics pages and discussions

• OK, here's one, just ban Curly from all pages and discussions regarding comics. I just took the effort to read all of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#_Assistance_in_developing_content_relating_to_individual_characters_across_multiple_articles, where I find more of the same thing I found at Talk:Joker_(comics). A completely civil discussion, until Curly shows up, and then it devolves into a shitfest. Darkknight participates, but he is not the instigator. I don't know or care what prior interactions these two editors have had. I just know that things seem to move smoothly in this topic area until Curly starts contributing. So, simple solution, disallow that. By the way guys, both of you, if you want to ensure this discussions ends with both of you getting blocked or topic banned, by all means keep sniping at each other in this very thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I hope some other editors take the time to read the discussion, as my first several comments were all polite, constructive, and on topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - this COMPLETELY ignores the disruption caused by the other party. Regardless of who started it, disruption is disruption. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be ANI without a proposal for some sort of ban, broadly construed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• ... And then I saw this and remembered how sloppy ANI can sometimes be. Strongest possible oppose CT has contributed a number of GA- and FA-class articles in this topic area, and in this particular dispute he is not only right on the substance but has been far more patient and civil than DK. A TBAN of CT would be a disaster for the project, and would completely miss the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Personal attack removed)DarkKnight2149 16:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear who you were calling impatient and uncivil, but the diff you provided showed no evidence of either, which makes that an "[a]ccusation[...] about personal behavior that lack[s] evidence". I have blanked it in accordance with WP:RPA. Do not restore it, and do not repeat similar comments elsewhere. (And yes, I am aware that you've posted essentially the same thing a half-dozen times in this thread; I removed this one to make an example. I'll leave you to self-retract the others.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I was pinged into a previous ANI discussion so have a little bit of background. My reading of that one went the other way to Someguys. I suspect there is a walled garden of sorts around WP:comics and we should not topic ban the main person trying to open it up. AIRcorn (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My reading of interactions since the last ANI

I've read the discussion at WP:COMICS and gone through the comments made by both editors in this dispute in chronological order

How the latest fight between these two started
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Darkwarriorblake—you never made to split it. You were given the choice of refocussing or splitting, and you chose to split. Having said that, I agree that the opening line to the current Joker (comics) article could probably serve as a model for fictional character articles. I've made a change to the Goodman Beaver article to reflect that—even though this character has appeared exclusively in comics, it shouldn't be referred to as a "comics character". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Certainly not uncivil. 2. Whether there are spinoff articles at all depends entirely on whether there's enough content to justify it. Character articles should not be split by default into in comics and in other media to isolate a favoured incarnation, which is what the superhero editors seem to demand. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Still not uncivil. 3. Correction: my concerns have had nothing to do with in- vs out-of-universe. Mainly, I've had two concerns: WP:COMICS taking OWNnership of fictional character articles by DABbing them with (comics) WP:COMICS making the comics incarnations of fictional characters the base article, and shoving everything else (regardless of how substantial) into little "other media" subsections or other articles entirely The above applies almost exclusively to superhero articles; you won't often find this sort of thing in non-superhero fictional character articles, and when you do, you don't run into a ridiculous wall of resistance when you try to fix it. Just look at Wolverine (character)—it's been moved at least four times as WP:COMICS members have tried to exert OWNership over the article by giving it a nonsensical DAB. SMcCandlish's "a comics focus is obvious for Doctor Strange despite there finally being a movie" reiterates what I've already said—if the subject has appeared almost exclusively in comics, per WP:WEIGHT the bulk of the article will end up covering those comics appearances (à la Goodman Beaver). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Reasonable argument. 4. It would have been appreciated if someone would have notified me of this discussion, since I am the one who nominated the deletion to begin with (unless a few editors would consider notifying an editor who is already involved as canvassing as well). What I will say is that Joker (character) can not continue to exist in its current form. Whether it's deleted or merged with Joker (comics), coming to a permenant centralised agreement would be very helpful. The problem here is that we seem to have two different waves of editors that have separate ideas of how these articles should be handled, so we need to fix that by coming together and fixing the contradictory guidelines. DarkKnight2149 00:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) WP:IDHT regarding the outcome of the AFD 5. I've been busy with things outside of Wikipedia, other articles, and a massive fiasco, but I may be able to contribute wherever I can. DarkKnight2149 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Civil. 6. If we're deleting or merging Joker (character) (which is what needs to happen), then I don't see why not. And this "creating separate articles for the general character and the comics character" should NOT become a trend. We aren't about to start splitting articles and wasting useless space simply because a group of stubborn users want to use slippery slop WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that aren't even true ("all other character articles do this"... no they don't). I don't see why the character's source material can't be covered in the base article. And Joker (comics) is the base article. As previously stated, other media versions are covered in that article (with Joker in other media only being split due to the sheer amount of content). If you don't think that Joker (comics) covers the other media interpretations enough, then try ADDING TO IT. Going out and creating a duplicate base article because you think that it focusses too much on the comics or because you think the project is being WP:OWNy borderlines on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also keep in mind that you can't title an article (Character) in comics unless it is specifically about the comic book appearances themselves. Joker (comics) can't be renamed Joker in comics because it's about the character, not the various appearances that the character has made. DarkKnight2149 21:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC) More WP:IDHT, bonus irony at no extra charge. 7. Also, members of WP:COMICS better watch your backs. Curly Turkey is coming to clean you up. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Strawman argument. 8. Oh, look! Darkknight2149's shown up to stir the shitter! Who'd've thunk that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC) WP:NPA, in response to the continued strawman and WP:IDHT in regards to the AFD and ANI. It basically devolves into a shitshow after this point.

TL:DR: Things were going reasonably well until DK entered the conversation with immediate WP:IDHT and strawman arguments. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have been keeping track of the conversation, you would know that this didn't start at WP:COMICS. It started at Talk:Joker (comics) and carried over. I suggest you stop your obvious WP:FACTION behaviour. DarkKnight2149 16:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet, here you are, making unsubstantiated claims of meatpuppetry here and here - I'm starting to have serious trouble assuming good faith when you clearly aren't. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated, eh? I think not. And you have further proved with this hypocritical ban proposal (along with a great many other things) what your intentions are here. DarkKnight2149 00:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Um.... Okay? DarkKnight2149 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I hope people are clicking through to see DK's "evidence". This is one of the behavioural issues at the core of the dispute. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope they are clicking through my evidence as well. And I should also point out that WP:COMICS (which is construed in the collapsed section above) was not the start of our dispute. It started at Talk:Joker (comics) and carried over a few different places. DarkKnight2149 01:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban of User:Darkknight2149

After reading events above, I propose that, due to continued refusal to get the point, User:Darkknight2149 is indefinitely topic banned from comics, broadly construed. In addition, both users are to be strongly reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If this content dispute continues between the two users, standard blocks of escalating length will apply. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said above, this completely ignores the actions of the other user. It is very obvious at this point that you are only here to WP:FACTION, from you only leaving warnings to me and not Turkey, to you jumping at WP:BATTLEGROUND claims, only supporting Turkey and now a highly hypocritical ban proposal. Need I bring out the diffs? DarkKnight2149 16:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why DK's so quick to accuse others of being part of my inner circle. Perhaps my memory's faulty, but ... have we even interacted before, Twitbookspacetube? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I certainly can't remember any interaction with you... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Turkey, because it's not like you haven't given us any reason to be suspicious of you, right? DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Twitbookspacetube and Curly Turkey have never interacted with each other prior to this thread: [110]. Moreover, I have consistently observed Twitbookspacetube to be studiously neutral, circumspect, and helpful. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

DK has brought these meatpuppetry allegations to Twitbook's talk page: "Just know that meat puppetry is unacceptable behaviour."—and has been editwarring over them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No edit war is currently taking place at that Talk Page. However, if I want to remove my comment because of Twitbook's "don't post" rubbish, I have every right to do so (given that virtually no real discussion took place). DarkKnight2149 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You stand by accusations of meatpuppetry? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, I think he has been convinced otherwise. See the sub-conversation in the now-hatted last section of this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but I don't see anything suggesting that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to know what Twitbook's exact motives are at this point (could be a grudge, faction/meat puppetry, or something else). However, their bias is nonetheless clear (see the diffs and breakdown listed below). I wouldn't be surprised if they make another one-sided proposal that serves no real point just as things appear to have cooled down. DarkKnight2149 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In order to completely confirm/debunk a faction or meat, we would have to go through their edits on all of their accounts. I think I speak for everyone when I say that nobody wants to make things worse by opening that can of worms. DarkKnight2149 23:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief, every single person on this entire ANI thread who has !voted or opined agrees with Twitbook. This battleground mentality is why no one has rescinded their !vote for a topic-ban, and why you are also skating perilously close to a block for sheer disruptiveness. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the IDHT. Also, apparently Jbhunley somehow "isn't a neutral party" now (even though he has clearly shown exasperation for both sides of the argument). DarkKnight2149 00:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Every single person on this entire ANI thread is a neutral party, except Hijiri who is a friend of CT's. That was what Twitbook was referencing. You don't see it, but everyone else does, including admins. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I called JBjumley a neutral party and Twitbook laughed as if it were false. You sure have a way of spinning situations. I'm thinking of stopping responding altogether. The discussion between me and Curly seems to be more civil now, so there isn't anything else that this thread can accomplish. It has served its purpose; no need to continue looking for reasons to keep it going (such as by pulling up old threads, like the "Great Canvass Dispute of 2017"). DarkKnight2149 00:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender: you must realize by now that there'll be no end to this. I mean, here he is (as of 00:55, 12 February 2017 UTC) still arguing he never canvassed and still not giving up on the idea that Twitbook might be a meatpuppet. Do you really want to keep arguing with him here? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No. But it does point up the fact that some sanction is in order. And the fact that he can't see Twitbook's meaning in that sentence is sort of baffling. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reading all the 'it's not me it's the other guy' stuff below. Jbh ^Talk 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What "other guy" stuff? I said that I would be willing to accept the proposal if Turkey agrees (because this won't work if we both don't form a mutual agreement). What is so difficult about that to understand? DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yet you are still here complaining about FACTION and how impossible it is for you to be civil and work with CT etc. Go start some good faith, civil dispute resolution rather than continuing here. There really is nothing you can say here that would help your case more or be more constructive than that. At this point pretty everything you or CT say in this thread other than 'OK mate let's see if we can work this out like gentleman (or whatever)' just make it more likely that people here will figure you, if fact can not work out your differences and the topic area would be better off with one, or both, banned. Since you seem, based on what I have read here, to be the more verbose it likely will be you. See First law of holes. Jbh ^Talk 00:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
      • This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT got old a while ago. I never said that it was impossible for me to be civil. That's not what I said at all; I suggest you re-read my comments below. I've already spelt out what I said. Secondly, I have already accepted Softlavender's proposal at least three times already, not to mention that I HAVE discussed an agreement with Curly ([111], [112], [113], [114]). Do you have any other reasons for supporting this absurd ban? I apologise if I come across I little irritated right now but, to be honest, it's because I am at this point. DarkKnight2149 00:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If an admin has to warn you about being blocked for IDHT behaviour, you shouldn't be saying This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT got old a while ago. I've got half a mind to go through the COMICS discussion to see if you've continued denying that you were canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • No, you have done nothing but complain about factions, and make meat accusations and say "I'll do this if CT agrees" etc. Go open the bloody DR and see if CT will participate. Just ====> Press Here If you don't think that will work go open a well formed WP:RFC. Do. Not. Say. - Simple. Jbh ^Talk 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I might just consider that. And for a civil discussion to work, both sides have to agree to be civil. Otherwise, the discussion won't work. I've already been over this, but this WP:IDHT is encoded in this discussion, I guess. And I've backed up my faction claims with substantial evidence. You are aware that blatant tag teaming is a form of WP:MEAT, right? DarkKnight2149 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
            • "I might just consider that" - No, you either want to move forward and will do it or you don't and won't. Do or not do - simple. "[F]or a civil discussion to work, both sides have to agree to be civil" - not true. You decide that you will be civil what the other guy does is on them. Until you learn that you will keep getting in situations like this. I already see in you many of the signs of an editor on the track to an indef. I think you have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia and think that would be a shame. Jbh ^Talk 01:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support As I said above, I'm biased (in favour of CT; my bias against DK is justified and relevant), and I wasn't going to comment here until it was brought up again on my talk page, but yeah... DK has a penchant for edit-warring as opposed to civil discussion, a tendency to engage in IDHT/filibustering on talk pages when he even does post there, pretty bad sourcing standards (which makes the edit-warring and the talk-page IDHT and filibustering even worse) and ... well, 75.9% v. 5.1%[115] is not necessarily a bad thing, but when over 40% of one's mainspace edits have "undid revision" in their edit summaries, and at least some of those can be demonstrated as reinserting poorly-sourced POV and/or OR into articles (see Talk:Mr. Freeze), that is really suspect. All of this, plus his willingness to collapse comments he doesn't agree with because they are "off-topic" even though he will post on the talk page of the user who made them weeks after the fact and laugh at them without even providing a diff or a link to the relevant page ... Yeah, enough is enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason showing up weeks late and laughing at me without providing any link to the comment he was laughing at was bad in combination with the edit-warring and selective hatting was because he made it really hard to figure out how to respond to him. I didn't even remember where I had posted the comment he was quoting at me, and when I "Ctrl+F"ed the page where it actually was I came up blank. I reverted the (uninvolved, good faith) editor's collapse and was immediately reverted by the same guy who had seen fit to lead my on that wild goose chase in the first place. This is not to say that I am !voting here for the purpose of getting DK to re-revert his disruptive hatting and would retract my support if he did so; the article edit-warring, POV-pushing, borderline-OR, IDHT, filibustering and canvassing all need to be addressed, and they are bigger than the one uncivil comment he left on my talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"I'm biased" - Yes, we know. And you already admitted at your Talk Page that no disruptive editing took place at the Mister Freeze article ([116]). I also never hatted anything, except for reverting you when you tried to edit a closed discussion ([117]). I was not the only one to do so, and I did not put the hat there to begin with ([118]). I literally didn't hat anything. Not. One. Thing. You already know this, so I don't know why you are lying. DarkKnight2149 00:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it was you or someone else who removed my maintenance tags without addressing the core problems, but just because I chose not to get into an edit war with you doesn't mean you wouldn't have edit-warred. The disruption took place on the talk page, and is there for all to see.The article as it is now conforms to your POV, which is in line with the DC Comics propaganda narrative rather than objective history, and as a result the original creator of the character is not named anywhere in the article. My having given up on the page because your constant IDHT, filibustering, and refusal to accept sources you don't agree with (or even claiming that they said something they didn't say) does not mean that you were "right" and shouldn't face sanctions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. In order for their to be an edit war, there actually has to be an edit war. My POV isn't inline with any propaganda, and I don't recall ever removing anyone's maintenence tags. I know that, at Mister Freeze, there was a lack of consensus due to conflicting sources. DarkKnight2149 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You edit war. That's a fact. On the Joker AFD that started this recent flare-up, you edit-warred. Almost half of your article edits a blank reverts with automatically generated edit summaries, and that doesn't even include any partial or manual reverts. The Mr. Freeze example was one where you didn't necessarily edit-war (although if you wern't the one who removed the maintenance tags, you should say so), but you engaged in gross misrepresentation of sources, IDHT and filibustering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, then it's a good thing I didn't canvass :) DarkKnight2149 01:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry to ping you again, but ... well, you can ignore my talk page. I genuinely didn't think DK would do this, and so I didn't think I'd have cause to ping you here. You should block him for flagrantly violating your warning. If you don't want to do it I'll ask someone else. This constant IDHT is really getting on my nerves, and I only started following this yesterday after a long break. I'd hate to think how CT and the others feel.

Or if any other admins are watching, please feel free to step in. DK needs to be blocked because the multiple warnings clearly weren't enough to get him to stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning support (see below). The fact that DK started right back up with disrupting a civil discussion (see section directly above for evidence), even after the last ANI thread, and the fact that he has gone out of his way to time and again repeatedly deny that he ever canvassed at the AfD, leads me to believe that he may be the primary problem. I would probably lean towards a time-limit on the topic ban, though. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC); edited 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I already told Drmies, on his very own Talk Page, that I won't be taking responsibility for vote stacking because I had no intention of vote stacking. Why are you bringing this up? Drop the stick. That canvass fiasco is over. At some point, you need to get over that. DarkKnight2149 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, since you refuse to provide any diffs, the discussion are apparently talking about is here. You promised to refrain from further canvassing, which is good in theory, but you also persisted in the whole "what I did was not canvassing" schtick. "What I did was not canvassing. I have never canvassed. I will not canvass in the future." is meaningless because if you don't accept the same definition of canvassing as everyone else then we have no reason to believe you won't do the same thing again and continue to deny that it is canvassing.

But what's worse is that Drmies' warning wasn't even about canvassing. Is was about refusal to accept that there was canvassing. So regardless of any dubious promises not to engage in future canvassing, you are still violating the warning by denying that you canvassed in December. I don't care about the canvassing at this point. It's IDHT that's getting on my nerves.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, Hijiri88, but you're dead wrong. You were the one who wanted me blocked for denying it. And blocks are not for punishment; they are to prevent further behaviour. @Drmies warning at the deletion discussion was "Stop canvassing, or you'll get blocked. Listen to other editors". At Drmies' Talk Page, I told Drmies that I am not taking responsibility for something that I didn't intent on doing. His response [119] [120] was pretty much "You're not going to canvass in the future, are you? No? Excellent, don't." Why are you continuing to bring this up? It's over. This ended weeks ago. Seriously, move on. I haven't mentioned it in a while (before this report). DarkKnight2149 03:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Shit. On second reading, you might be right. I read the "it" in there was canvassing. Stop doing it or you will very likely be blocked. Please listen to other editors as referring to the IDHT that was being discussed immediately above the comment (another reason I didn't like it being hatted). But on closer reading it does look like "stop canvassing or you will very likely be blocked" might be the better reading. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, we're all human. DarkKnight2149 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• • I did not come back up and interupt a civil discussion. I was already involved in the matter and I simply stated my position, which was too much for Curly to handle. And the ban proposal is not evidence. It's from an Twitbook, who quite obviously has a bias against me (see real evidence below). DarkKnight2149 00:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender: I see you're experiencing what I've been experiencing since this whole thing began. Note the quality of his "real" evidence against my Twitbook, and see how it compares to each time he posts a link supposedly refuting me—often links saying the polar opposite of what he asserts (for example this of his linking to this of mine). This is the exact style of interaction that's led me to deal with DarkKnight as I have. No, I'm not excusing my incivility. Perhaps he's acting in good faith but has serious WP:CIR problems—which could explain why he can't accept that any of his transgressions have been real. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:CIR issues? That's funny. You mean aside from nearly three years of editing that proves otherwise? And I did try to be patient with you, Curly. Go read Talk:Joker (comics) where it started. I am still willing to be patient with you again, and have a civil discussion. But your incivility and invention of accusations clearly didn't win you or me the discussion, did it? More importantly, it made it impossible to reach a consensus. And as we can both see, the discussion has spiraled out of control. And one thing that these editors are all correct about (except for perhaps Twitbook, who said he wants me to be indef blocked for some reason) is that we do need to reconcile this incivility and move forward. DarkKnight2149 01:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: You cannot enact a topic ban on me without also banning Curly Turkey for his behaviour, especially given that this is a mutual content dispute. Not only that, but it clearly isn't necessary given this agreement ([121], [122], [123], [124]) that everyone has conviently ignored and the fact that I have agreed to Softlavender's proposal multiple times (though that apparently isn't enough for her).

I should also note that both the proposer and the supporter Hijiri88 are both highly guilty of WP:FACTION behaviour with Curly Turkey. HiJiri has admitted it here (not to mention this). The proposer, Twitbookspacetube (who happens to have a history of disruptive editing), has particularly been laughably one sided throughout this entire discussion. Almost as soon as Curly Turkey posted this WP:ANI discussion, Twitbook immediately left two warnings on my page without even addressing Curly one time ([125]). Then, as soon as he arrived at this discussion, nearly all of his arguments have been either defending Curly or accusing me of something (such as WP:BATTLEGROUND, when I mentioned the content dispute [126]). When it came to the proposal that Curly Turkey recieve a topic ban, he argued that Turkey shouldn't be banned because it doesn't address my part in the argument. Then, Twitbook turned right around and hyprocitically proposed the same ban on me (while violating WP:IDHT by suggesting I started the whole thing). Twitbook has even suggested that I be blocked indefinitely. And that's not even mentioning his dismissive reaction when I addressed him at his Talk Page. This is clear WP:MEAT behaviour and Twitbook quite obviously has a bias against me. DarkKnight2149 00:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your "what other guy stuff" question above; This is other guy stuff. Jbh ^Talk 00:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Providing genuine evidence for Twitbook's obvious biased intentions with this highly hyprocritical proposal is not disruptive. And because of the mutual content dispute, you can't topic ban me without doing the same with Turkey. It would also be very one-sided and wouldn't address Curly's glaring part in this. The exact same argument was made when someone proposed that Turkey be banned, so don't give me this other guy gibberish. DarkKnight2149 00:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This bizarrely inappropriate and extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (visible on this entire ANI thread, on the collapsed discussion copied in the section above, and on the last ANI and AFD and in DK's endless comments about those last two items long after they were closed) needs to be stopped, and this is a reasonable first step. If it fails to stop the behavior, a block may be in order, because the community cannot waste more time on this disruptive behavior. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, the AFD has not been resolved. It crashed because of your unproven canvassing claims. And there is no WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Now it is you who are repeating what Twitbook said. And if you actually followed the discussion, you would know that the collapsed section above isn't evidence for anything. All it is is Twitbook twisting facts. And frankly, this is not [127] the first time that you have reached to find disruptive editing where there is none. And because of a genuine content dispute, you can't topic ban one of us without also banning the other. Banning me also doesn't address Curly's massive part in this. Again, you completely fail to get the point. DarkKnight2149 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: I did not make canvassing claims, Curly Turkey did. And the community and Drmies agreed with the claim. The AfD was closed as "trainwreck" because of your canvassing and Curly Turkey's subsequent ping-canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support DK2149 clearly can't participate in this area without contentious attacks. Even in this thread which is specifically about HIS behavior he can't help but not hear criticism (eg "Again you completely fail to get the point.), and focus on others' behavior instead of address their own. He claims that "...you can't topic ban one of us without also banning the other.", we absolutely can do that. The way things are going it looks like that is what is going to happen. CT AND DK, you are both good editors, I implore you to drop your sticks and walk away. Whether that walk is to other places in the project or counting paces until you draw down on each other is up to you.--Adam in MO Talk 01:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all, I'm not the one making the contentious attacks. And yes, I will defend myself against misguided or straight-up wrong accusations. And I have already expressed an interest in moving forward peacefully with this content dispute and have spoken to Curly Turkey about it. I don't know why editors are keeping this going, especially with laughably one sided proposals. And for the majority of the discussion, there were no contentious attacks from me. You and some of the others seem to neglect that it was Curly's incivility that caused this mess. And believe me when I tell you that I 100% believe in everything that I've been saying. DarkKnight2149 01:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The battleground behavior on display here is amazingly self-defeating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What battleground behaviour? The WP:IDHT and general ignorance of the many genuine points that I have made is amazingly self-defeating. By the way, you should probably come up with your own analysis instead of just repeating what everyone says. What would this pointless one sided ban accomplish and why should I be the only one banned? (and please bring something new to the table; I grow tired of having to repeat the same points over and over). DarkKnight2149 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

• It's obvious to me, despite denials, that both editors are equal parties to the feuding behavior, and engage in attacks and insinuations and in bringing up (or alluding to) old grievances. All of this has to stop. Please carefully read my detailed proposal/remedy in the "Other proposals" section above. Softlavender (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is. DarkKnight2149 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only way things work is by each of you being willing to be polite and move on regardless of how the other behaves. "I'll be good if the other guy is too" is never a good sign and tends to indicate someone who is not really ready to move on and wants to use the other party's behavior as an excuse for their continued bad behavior. Resolve to behave impeccably and do so, if the other party then behaves badly there is no question about who to sanction. Jbh ^Talk 18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a civilised discussion when the other editor won't allow it. I was civil when this all started. How do you think it spiraled out of control? DarkKnight2149 18:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Of course it's possible! You can be civil even if the other party isn't. Fighting fire with fire does not work in this context. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed entirely possible (and a requisite skill to being a civilized editor on Wikipedia) to have a civilized discussion, no matter what other parties are doing. To repeat: Discuss content, not editors. ... [A]void mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Completely ignore any personalized comments or misdirection from others. That's all it takes: staying on-topic by stating your preferred content and ignoring everything else. Softlavender (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Big words coming from people who weren't involved in the discussion. This isn't a matter of "fighting fire with fire". You can't have a civilised debate when CT's every other word is an assumption of bad faith or an off topic incivility. It was basically just incivility and accusations over and over and over. There's only so many times you can put the conversation back on-topic as you realise how impossible CT is making it to reach any sort of consensus. And I suggest you take a good hard look at Talk:Joker (comics) before denying it. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are unwilling to closely read the advice that has been given you (including the various forms of dispute resolution), or to even learn to be civil in the face of what you perceive to be assumptions of bad faith or off topic incivilities, says to me that your time on Wikipedia without sanctions will probably be limited. Softlavender (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No amount of incivility justifies being uncivil in return. Paul August ☎ 19:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said that it justified incivility in return. I said that Curly Turkey was making impossible for us to reach a consensus and have a civilised discussion (AKA being a roadblock). This WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is getting absurd.

And I already agreed to the damn dispute resolution at least three times already. How is that "ignoring the dispute resolution"? Seriously, you need to start listening. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't "agree" to dispute resolution, one initiates dispute resolution. If you don't know what dispute resolution is, I've listed and linked all of the forms of it in my proposal. The fact that you are still blaming others, and making conditions on others, and now cursing, indicates to me that you do not yet see that the conditions for civility reside entirely in yourself. You either unconditionally agree to be unconditionally civil (which includes initiating dispute resolution when that may be warranted), or you don't. My proposal is not for you to make a bargain or a condition; it is to agree to henceforth proceed only with civility. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are well aware of the resolution proposals, so stop pretending like you don't know what I mean. And there are no "bargaining" attempts here. A mutual civility agreement wouldn't be much of a civility agreement if both sides don't agree to it, now would it? And given the WP:IDHT and the failures to get the point, I think my frustration is warranted. This is also not the first time that you made ridiculous claims of disruptive behaviour. DarkKnight2149 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"You are well aware of the resolution proposals, so stop pretending like you don't know what I mean." I literally have no idea what you are talking about or what you mean. Your abdication of responsibility for your own civility, and your argumentativeness and belligerence here even in the face of evidence of your disruption (in the above sections) and good-faith attempts to resolve the situation without exacting sanctions seem to me to be evidence that perhaps sanctions are indeed in order here. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I am talking about how you created a proposal and then, when it was accepted, you tried to act like there was no proposal. And if you are about to incorrectly accuse me of disruptive editing and misinterpret what I say, of course I'm going to be argumentative. And no, the fact-twisting hyprocritical ban proposal of the obviously biased Twitbookspacetube isn't evidence for anything. Try taking a look at the REAL discussions that have been linked over and over. DarkKnight2149 00:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As several editors have made very clear to you, more than once, you did not accept the proposal. You made your own proposal, which was "I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is." (emphasis mine). You also clearly have no idea what DR is nor have you made any effort to find out, despite multiple links repeatedly provided to you here. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And as I have made clear, it will only work if both editors are being civil. Otherwise, Curly Turkey will still be halting the progress of the discussion with his incivility. You can't move forward when one editor is still be disruptive, and if I report Curly for futher disruptive behaviour, we will both be under suspicion again. Frankly, it's not a hard concept to grasp. DarkKnight2149 01:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You clearly have either not fully read, or not fully understood the proposal, nor what anyone else has said to you in this section. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take the liberty of repeating my proposal here:

I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

-- Softlavender (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To also repeat, I'm willing. DarkKnight2149 18:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Then initiate the relevant processes. As was said above, you initiate dispute resolution, not agree to it. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Twitbookspacetube: Get real. All you did was repeat what Softlavender said. I don't know if you have something against me or are just supporting Curly Turkey, but your laughably one-sided meat puppetry needs to stop.

@Softlavender: If myself and/or Curly accepting your proposal is too much for you, then why did you make the proposal? And if it weren't for all of this tiresome WP:IDHT, everyone would already know that there has been initiative. It's funny how everyone managed to skip over this potential agreement between me and Turkey ([128], [129], [130], [131]). DarkKnight2149 00:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Those links aren't evidence of anything—especially the third. Is the third one an error? Anyways, things clearly haven't moved on now that you're attacking Softlavender, accusing Twitbookspacetube of sockpuppetry, etc.

Note: the discussion at WP:COMICS has continued in a civil manner without DK, just as it had been progressing with civility before he joined it. I'm promising to remain civil regardless of what DK does, though I admit I'll no longer be assuming good faith. What can we do if the disruption returns? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm going to repeat from up above: DarkKnight, at the top of this thread, you didn't accept my proposal, you made your own proposal, which was "I'm willing to move forward peacefully with the discussion if CT is." (emphasis mine). And you have not retracted your conditional proposal. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a rebuttal planned for that ridiculous claim up there (who the hell accused Twitbook of sock puppetry?). However, it does appear that Curly Turkey is finally ready to drop the incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. For that reason, I can drop my guard and we can go to the peaceful discussion that this should have been all along. Yes, Softlavender. I 100% agree to your proposal. DarkKnight2149 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You give yourself away there by saying "it does appear that Curly Turkey is finally ready to drop the incivility so that we can have a clean discussion. For that reason, I can drop my guard and we can go to the peaceful discussion that this should have been all along." This indicates to me that you are not agreeing to be civil and observe my guidelines no matter what. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I will continue being civil, even if Turkey doesn't. I never said that I was going to "fight fire with fire". I simply made a point that its impossible to reach a consensus when Turkey begins being incivil. That's what I've been saying this entire time, but you took that and turned it into something else.

Since you are the main one chastising me that doesn't appear to be in Turkey's inner circle (and since you are the one who made the proposal), I want to ask you specifically - hypothetically speaking, IF Turkey begins being incivil again (right now, the conversation at WP:COMICS appears to be going smoothly), what do you think I should do? DarkKnight2149 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No one on this entire ANI thread is "in Turkey's inner circle" except possibly Hijiri, and he readily admitted that he is biased. I never said anything about "fight[ing] fire with fire", nor did I twist anything you said; it's all there for anyone to see. I'm not going to answer your question because it is already answered in my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: "I recommend that they discuss content, not editors. I recommend that going forward they avoid mentioning the other editor in any way (not by name, allusion, or the words "you" or "your", nor any reference to any past interaction or discussion -- avoid dredging up water under the bridge). Start over with a clean slate, and discuss only content, edits, desired edits, proposals, and desired content. Use WP:RfC, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFM as needed. Keep discussions on project talkpages and article talkpages, and off of user talkpages." - No, your proposal doesn't come close to answering my question. But since you're going to be difficult, there's nothing left to discuss. Discussion appears to be running smoothly at WP:COMICS. Unless another problem arises, I think we're done here. All that's left is that pointless and facepalmingly biased topic ban. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting my proposal. It's very clear, and the answer to your question is exactly that. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, posting this in the "discussion" section so as not to clog up the proposal itself: since I suspect someone will try to claim IDHT is not a blockable offense, I would draw their attention to the 2015 final warning given to CurtisNaito here. I have been getting flashbacks to that incident, and I am sure CT is of like mind. Enough is enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Do you disagree that the IDHT behaviour is disruptive and needs to stop? I really wished "discussion" would have taken place in this section. Would you be opposed to reopening the discussion with separate "survey" and "discussion" sub-sub-sections? How do you propose we deal with it? It's not very helpful to just say "you're being non-constructive; shut up and stop talking; I'm closing your proposal". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The IDHT is part of why there is a topic ban proposed. Earlier I opined that you were providing more heat than light to this discussion because of the obvious bad blood between you and DK. You earlier complained that DK was making the thread TL/DR so it would not be closed. What you seem to have missed is that you are doing the same thing. While your focused input and perspective is useful, much beyond that is much less so. You, by your own statement, are biased against DK - and it shows. DK has done a great job of illustrating the case against them all by himself, in this very thread.

If you think the IDHT goes beyond the topic area proposed for the ban the please start a seperate thread that focuses on that. The purpose of this thread is to address the comics/fictional character conflict. I did not mean any offense to you by hatting that section but it was, in my opinion, unhelpful as is your back and forth with DK and bringing up unrelated stuff like that tagging/reverting or whatever that was about from up thread. The less focused the discussion the less likely there will be any resolution. Jbh ^Talk 00:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to address the comics/fictional character conflict.—that conflict should be dealt with elsewhere. This discussion is about the disruptive behaviour that has prevented progress on the "comics/fictional character conflict". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, y'all may be right. We'll see if the TBAN solves the problem. If not, we can always come back later -- if someone gets a TBAN because of IDHT behaviour and the IDHT behaviour continues, getting an admin to say "I will block you if you continue this disruptive behaviour" will be super-easy. (Especially considering that, if the present IDHT pattern continues, he will probably deny that he was even placed under a TBAN and will almost immediately violate it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And that has now been addressed. I don't know why some editors insist on keeping this going, but as I said a second ago, I'm probably done here. If someone opens another laughably one-sided proposal, dragging up past conflicts, it will be their doing. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Final warning about IDHT

Non-constructive bickering Jbh Talk 16:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Last edited: 01:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC) So yeah ... as it turns out I may have been wrong about Darkknight2149 already being on a final warning about this "I didn't do anything wrong, and there was no community consensus to that effect" act. But he really should be, because it was already starting to get ridiculous during the AFD. So I'm proposing a final warning that if Darkknight2149 engages in any more IDHT behaviour, he will be blocked for 24 hours. This proposal is independent of all the others above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Support - It's abundantly clear which party is being disruptive in this coversation alone. This proposal can help bring some sanity into the discussion and prevent more extreme alternatives gaining support. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Really?: Oh look, it's the two editors from Curly Turkey's inner circle. And they're posting another proposal that conveniently only mentions me. And it's happening right after Softlavender's proposal was accepted and discussion resumed as normal at WP:COMICS. Give it a bloody rest. It's been repeatedly explained to you that Twitbookspacetube and Curly Turkey have never interacted with each other prior to this thread: [132]. If I were you, I would read WP:HOLES. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC) This isn't Twitbook's first account. And even if they haven't, the bias against me is clearly there. I already provided a detailed explanation with diffs above. It's blatant. DarkKnight2149 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Although the quick edit-warring notice and cursing on your talk page was extremely odd, his admitted previous accounts have absolutely zero contact with Curly Turkey, ever. If you believe there is yet a further previous or sock account that he has not admitted, I suppose you are free to request that a checkuser look for sleepers; and since editing similarly to an old account is a violation of his declared WP:CLEANSTART, that would be sanctionable if true. Beyond that, accusations of factionalism seem unfounded here. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I second the above comment. Although, if any sleeper accounts are found, that will absolutely be news to ME! - however, I am beginning to suspect that the same may not be true for you, DK., given the alarmingly convenient hit and run suggestion from User:Someguy1221 that conveniently supported you and opposed CT... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Well, I'm not Darkknight2149, I say so clearly on my userpage, which has never been wrong. That said, I'm sad to see all the sniping has just kept going. In the content disputes at the heart of this, both Darkknight and Curly hold totally reasonable, if incompatible, positions. Both are capable of civil discourse. It seems to me that both editors are willing to try moving on. I think if they can avoid dredging up old issues they've had with one another, even to other users, no topic bans will be necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC) If you think that Someguy and I are the same editor, then perform a checkuser. Seriously, if you're not just making this up, investigate. You also still didn't address much of what I just said (AKA WP:IDHT). DarkKnight2149 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Also, if we're giving out final warnings for IDHT, then several editors here need one. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Wait, I hope that last comment wasn't aimed at me. The whole reason I made this proposal was because I don't have an IDHT problem. I misread something another user said, and then when it was pointed out to me I accepted that I was in the wrong, and apologized. If you made a mistake like that, you would just double down and insist that there never was a mistake. We know because that is what you have been doing for the last two months. The idea of you saying On second reading, you might be right. [...] My apologies for the misunderstanding. may be laughable at this point, but it really shouldn't be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Actually, it wasn't aimed at you. DarkKnight2149 05:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC) For those who missed the discussion above, this "IDHT" proposal is about Hijiri88 digging up the past. A while back, I was accused of cavassing. Essentially, Hijiri88 wants me to get blocked because I won't say that I canvassed. This entire situation ended weeks ago, Hijiri88 is now bringing back up for whatever reason. DarkKnight2149 05:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Just so it's clear, I didn't decide to propose this until the latest incident of IDHT earlier today, in this thread. Well, then it's a good thing I didn't canvass :) isn't some obscure incident from two months ago that I am refusing to drop the stick about. It happened today. Like eight hours ago. Two hours before I opened this final warning discussion. Trolling kaomoji and all. DK either doesn't understand the difference between the specific canvassing incident two months ago and the long-term, recurring and current IDHT problem, or (more likely) he is deliberately feigning such a misunderstanding. Given that a few hours ago he was lecturing me on the difference between the two (You were the one who wanted me blocked for denying it. [...] Drmies warning at the deletion discussion was [about canvassing, not denying it]) I find the latter more likely. DK, you do realize that just because Drmies didn't threaten to block you for IDHT, it doesn't mean that IDHT is okay and you can continue doing it without repercussions. Drmies told you in the same breath that you should [p]lease listen to other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC) By the way, if this proposal gets ignored by the closer because there has not been enough interest in it, it will be obvious that filibustering the discussion was your intention. I'm collapsing this to encourage more participation from neutral third parties. You would do well not to do anything else that might lead others to think you are trying to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Comment: First of all, you don't get to hat off my defense every time you don't like what I have to say. Second, Hijiri88, do you think any of what you just said justifies pulling up this water under the bridge? I'm not going to say I canvassed simply because you pressured me to. EVER. The sooner you drop it, the better. Nobody has brought this up in weeks. DarkKnight2149 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Okay, I've had it up to here with people assuming that the only reason I could want to collapse (not "hat off") something it must because I "don't like it", especially when I specifically say that that's not why I'm doing it. It's blatantly obvious that you are trying to make this thread TLDR so it won't get closed and you can get off without the warning you deserve. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC) And as previously mentioned, blocks actually have to be preventative. Period. It's in the policies. DarkKnight2149 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC) If you are actively engaged in disruptive behaviour and making Wikipedia unpleasant for other editors, and have been doing so for months, and are threatening to continue to do so, a warning that if you do so again you will be blocked is not punitive; it is preventative. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @Hijiri88: you are really simply adding more heat than light to this thread and are a major contributor to making it TL/DR as you complained about earlier. Please, if you must argue with DK do it somewhere else. Thanks. Jbh Talk 16:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @Twitbookspacetube: I don't want to get into another "edit war" over collapsing on-topic discussion, so do you want to field this one? Numerous people have expressed concern over DK's IDHT behaviour over the last two months, and a non-admin just literally filibustered it with the rationale that I had made it TLDR. @Jbhunley: If you think it is not yet time for a final warning about IDHT, then you should express that opinion in the form of a comment. It is highly inappropriate to unilaterally shut down a proposal that several other users have already supported. If (like me!) you think the proposal is good in theory but unlikely to pass because of lack of outside interest due to the "discussion" between the subject of the proposal and the proposer, then you should collapse that part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Personally, I think it's not worth the effort. It's blatantly obvious that DK won't see their indef coming until they are hit by it with or without this warning. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC) And predictably, the two biased users are starting trouble again. And Twitbook just suggested an indefinite block for the second time (good luck with that, BTW). Seriously, take a hint and drop it. You're clearly not editing in good faith at this point. It's ridiculous that, even after an editor rightfully intervened, you still won't let the dispute go. DarkKnight2149 00:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC) @Jbhunley: As a neutral party, feel entirely free to hat this as well. I don't want this to escalate any more than you do. DarkKnight2149 00:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "Neutral party" - I haven't laughed that hard in years! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Yeah, never mind. The hat was wrong, and my opinion on this point has not changed. But it's definitely not worth the effort. Maybe the above TBAN will by side-effect solve the IDHT problem, as getting a broad TBAN might make DK reflect on what he has been doing wrong. So undermining the TBAN with a final warning proposal that might prevent the entire thread from being closed is a bad idea at this point. But the inaccurate summary needs to stay out. The first three or four comments were not non-constructive bickering. Let's just stop ... bickering, now, okay? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Block request for user Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has shown signs of repeatedly changing or editing specific pages to his liking having total disregard to the facts presented to him. I have attempted time and again to persuade him to not repeat his actions to no avail. He seems to pretend as though he is oblivious to the guidelines set by Wikipedia and continues to edit pages to his liking even going so far as to cite false websites or falsely cite websites. I write this hoping that sufficient actions will be taken against him to further prevent his vandalism. I also state that several other users have had disputes with him over these same issues on his talk page. Thank You.

Links below to a page where Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) falsified information about the release of a particular album he wished to put as the best selling of 1992 when he was fully aware of the fact that it was released in 1991. He is now currently putting an album that has 4.7 million sales as the best-selling album of 1992, when it was infact the album Unplugged of Eric Clapton that was the best selling with 10 million sales. I have repeatedly cited my sources and he has not.

[133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

His user talk page which shows apparent evidence of disputes with other user over similiar issues : [139]

Lord NnNn (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• So, this is clearly a content dispute. Priczki started a conversation on the talk page, which is exactly how one is supposed to resolve content disputes, yet you have not commented there. You've both been edit warring as well, so I've fully protected the page for a few days to give you a chance to resolve this through discussion instead iof edit warring, which by the way will get you blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Quidster4040 Conduct

Quidster4040 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could a fellow uninvolved admin please have a look at this user's recent behaviour. I recently closed two AfDs here and here, where I believed in good faith that the deletion rationales were sound and had not been rebutted in any significant way. Quidster4040 appears to have taken offence at this and has nominated a number of articles I created some years ago for deletion here. I believe that this behaviour is simply pointy and that, aside from the fact that the guidelines cited (NSEASONS) are not relevant to the articles, the only reason for nominating them is that he does not like my closing rationales to his articles. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment as I'm not an administrator, but I may have experienced the same thing as Fenix down mentioned above. I was the original creator of both AfD's noted above and right after the 2016 America East nomination, the user in question then, while that discussion was ongoing, nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia out of the blue – an article with which I had previously worked on. It surely could be coincidental as I'd prefer to assume good faith, but with the situation above it may be more indicative of a pattern. GauchoDude (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I can't figure out what's wrong with the stupid Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Palau Soccer League. I wanted to close it as "Retaliatory, bad-faith nomination", but Quidster seems to have done something along the way that already closed it. I'll pull the AfD templates from the articles anyway. So it is clear to me that this is indeed pointy and retaliatory. I'm not in a blocking mood right now, but this certainly is/was a blockable infraction, and if any other admin sees here a good enough reason for a block, go ahead. I'll just say that Quidster better stop doing this. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like the nomination was malformed. I manually closed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fre58ezzat WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Fre58ezzat (talk · contribs) inserts random texts in Arabic script and does not respond to talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I ran a few of their posts through a translator and they come back as some rant about a forbidden marriage, definitely WP:NOT HERE --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Edson Frainlar removing speedy deletion tag

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

---

User:Edson Frainlar has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag from DMI Foundations Trust after being warned that the author should not remove the tag, although the author may contest the deletion.

History of DMI Foundations Trust

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMI_Foundations_Trust&action=history

History of Edson Frainlar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edson_Frainlar

If an administrator thinks that the article isn't appropriate for G11 or A7, I am willing to go to Articles for Deletion, but an author is not supposed to remove the speedy tag, but to let the admin decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the page in question, as it did not appear notable, nor did it have any sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon The user is no way related to me. If he has any issues in my article, then he can view my article DMI Foundations Trust. No way the article is against the Rules of Wikipedia. If the user again reports such filthy things about my work, I will never any articles in Wikipedia. Because of such people, many writers are being disappointed. Right from the beginning he is reporting against my article even before the submission of the article. (talk), 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edson Frainlar (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. There may be a language problem here. How can I report an article before its submission? If he means that he hadn't finished writing it before I tagged it, my advice is to develop articles in draft space or user space until they are ready for article space, including being properly sourced. If he needs advice on how to develop new articles, he may ask at the Teahouse. I, and some other New Page Reviewers, would rather disappoint writers by deleting pages that aren't ready for article space than disappoint readers by allowing junk in article space. I will treat the reference to "filthy things" as a language problem rather than a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you have no idea. Robert has been disappointing writers here for a very long time. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note. I have prodded Edson Franlair's two articles Sisters of Daughters of Mary Immaculate and Collaborators and Fathers of Missionaries of Mary Immaculate, both created on February 5. The "Sisters" is completely unsourced, the "Fathers" is sourced to the society's own material only, with no indication of notability, and both are wildly promotional. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC).

• I suspect you could speedy them as G11. Also, there's a lot of copy and pasted material from the various DMI and MMI websites in there. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Good thinking. The creator doesn't even seem at all sure what to call these organizations — "Sisters" or "Society" of Daughters of Mary Immaculate? "Fathers" or "Society" of Missionaries? Etc. I've speedied them. Bishonen | talk 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Subject editor is making hostile posts to my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=764703054&oldid=764695740

It is true that my suggestion that the editor edit a Wikipedia in a language other than English, while meant in good faith, may have increased the hostility. I am willing to ignore the hostile posts and do not plan to change my attitude. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert, Edson Franlair has been making hostile posts to the talkpages of everybody who has ever spoken to him or mentioned his articles, so I don't think it's so much that you mentioned the language thing — you haven't been singled out. I've warned him to stop harassing users. He needs to read the policies he's told about, not try to push through his articles by force of aggression, or it'll soon come to a block. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

(Non-administrator comment) Edson Franlair aggressive approach to dealing with others has carried over to Commons. Language ability may be a problem because the editor seems to be misconstruing any warning/notification left for him as a personal attack. Templated warnings can probably seem a little brusk to a new SPA whose first language is not English, so maybe the personal message that Bishonen left on his user talk page will help. Still, if the current behavior continues then the community may need to take some action to prevent further disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edson Frainlar and civility issues

Edson Frainlar has been gently spoken to and warned by several users about their behavior yet the hostility continues. I believe there may be a bit of a language barrier but there is no excuse for this kind of hostile behavior. I believe all editors involved in this situation have assumed as much good faith as possible but it is clear that the user is not doing the same of others and does not seem to be here to collaborate.

Here are several examples of pretty extreme responses:

• Even now you haven't changed your attitude. You said that iam not proficient in English. I accept because I used to accept my faults. You said to ask doubts in teahouse. They will clarify my doubts. For discussion alone I need to approach teahouse in that sense then for what purpose you proposed my article to get deleted. Do your business. Even now you are not answering my question properly. I am wondering how you have created all that non sense articles. And you are self praising about you by showing those filthy articles. - On Robert McClenon's talk.

• Don't get into my nerves by continuously saying such filthy reasons. I have given all type of references available in internet. Moreover as a proof of religious congregation, i have included the reference from www.indiancathokiconline.com . Please view all the references carefully. Don't come and complaint without proper observation. Change your attitude. If you are perfect, let those skills rest with you. You don't pinpoint others like a senseless creature. - In response to Bishonen's rather kind guidance

• You have deleted my article named 'Fathers of Missionaries of Mary Immaculate' . How are you saying that this article is not neutral? Can you give me valid reasons. Without any proper evidence you have deleted my article. Wikipedia is not a good place for emerging article writers. Because of you people, I have stopped to write articles. Having some worthless intentional causes you have done this atrocity. You will repent for it soon. - Also in response to Bishonen (Also vaguely threatening imo with the "You will repent" garbage)

• I asked only for proof . Can you cite how my article was considered promotional? You cannot give me proof because you cannot find fault in my article. Soon you will repent. Good bye Another vaguely threatening response to Samtar. I don't remember what it was in response to exactly but I believe it was a talk page comment elsewhere.

Additionally, it seems that this user may not understand the nature of Wikipedia being a collaborative project when they make edits such as these:

• The user is no way related to me. If he has any issues in my article, then he can view my article DMI Foundations Trust. No way the article is against the Rules of Wikipedia. If the user again reports such filthy things about my work, I will never any articles in Wikipedia. Because of such people, many writers are being disappointed. Right from the beginning he is reporting against my article even before the submission of the article. - EF at ANI thread about removing speedies

• Can you tell me what is the reason for nominating speedy deletion for my article 'DMI Foundations Trust'. If you dont know how about my article, dont report. You are discouraging me. You may read the contents of my article. If you are so intelligent, just tell me the valid reason why you have suggested my article for speedy deletion. I have removed speedy deletion tag unknowingly. You are doing all these things intentionally. Behave yourself. Dont interfere in my articles. What do you know about DMI Foundations Trust? You may not know about all these stuffs. But you are ready to complain others as if you are good in writing articles. I am a new writer. Dont flatter as if you know everything. These are the words from my heart. So, behave yourself. Dont behave like a child. Even they are good than your sense. - EF's response to Robert Mclenon

• You are discouraging the emerging article writers by repeatedly complaining . What fault did you find in my article? Can u explain y?Continue your skill of scolding and aniinhsnipimh - EF's response to me

• Even now you haven't shown proof. Don't tell me to change my attitude. Do you know how I created that article? I was spending three days for that article. Nearly i have edited 30 times in three days. Without visualizing all these things and without any proof how dare you delete my article? I used to speak polite. But you are getting into my nerves and forcing me to speak harshly. Anyway you don't have proof. Accept - here

I could continue to list all the hostile edits here but I think it's clear. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

May be a touch premature. They haven't actually done anything since Bish gave them a stern warning this morning. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I hesitated to post this but they've been asked several times to cut it out and the lack of response is also concerning, as is their removal of well meaning comments after they received the warning. I realize users are free to remove whatever they wish from their talk page save for block notices, but that doesn't seem like good faith to me. This could also be an opportunity for them to show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project and as such they will be civil to other editors and try to understand policies and guidelines. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll put it this way, if they come back and continue, then I completely support sanctions, because they were warned by at least two people (myself included) that this kind of behavior would result in a block. TimothyJosephWood 19:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how they respond to Bishonen's latest actions. And is everyone aware of the related section above? Paul August ☎ 19:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, they are lucky Bish got there before I did, I would have blocked had I seen the diffs in the above thread first, but I respect Bish giving them one last chance to cut it out. Let's hold off until we see how they react to what's already transpired. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

She did it again? Bishonen is a disgrace to the admin community. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 22:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Sorry about that. Darwinbish should know she's not allowed in Wikipedia space. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

• (Non-administrator comment) There's another ANI about Edison Frainlar ongoing at WP:ANI#User:Edson Frainlar removing speedy deletion tag. Shouldn't the two be combined into a single discussion in order to avoid any unnecessary repetition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now combined the two sections. Paul August ☎ 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

POV Investigation for Page, Massive Edits by Inlinetext, Possible COI

I'm requesting an investigation into significant, possible WP:COI edits made by user Inlinetext on the WP:BLP page Swami Nithyananda. This user has deleted significant portions of the article over the past month including properly sourced awards and publications sections, while leaving only a controversial Finance and Management section that sources Indian tabloid articles like this one. When discussing this with him on his personal talk page, he was initially accusatory, told me to "continue your edits to improve toxicology articles..." and then deleted my reply without proper response. He has now added "e-commerce site" to the primary description of the WP:BLP Swami Nithyananda article without a source. The summation of these factors, 1) significant content deletion 2) Talk issue 3) addition of his latest "e-commerce" edit, has lead me to believe that this user has possible WP:COI, and that the Swami Nithyananda article is now a WP:POV issue. DocTox (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please evaluate (see WP:DUCK) the edits and user pages of User:Rurban23, User:Insight2010 and this user who are all interested in the BLP (and also toxicology). The "e-commerce site" description was already sourced in the body of the article to source and the reference doesn't need to be cited again in the lead section. There is already significant talk page consensue on the article's talk page about the content of the article concerning the removals which were mainly self sourced promotional puff like this. Inlinetext (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What a way to make sure your edits prevail - by raising legitimacy questions on everyone speaking against you? It's a mighty convenient coincidence you found, but you can't side-step your own WP:COI by finger pointing. There is not even a working store on Swami Nithyananda's [primary website], and by "mostly self-sourced", you must mean that you deleted quality content as well? Your malicious intent is clear, and your logic is flawed and see-through. DocTox (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you have also not notified the above users on their talk page so that they are aware of the situation. Wikipedia has clear rules for tagging users on this page, as they do with citing sources. DocTox (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

IKA route reference

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

---

Hi

I came across a citation on IKA's page (citation No. 23) that was previously provided for Mahan Air's Baku route, that's when the route hadn't started yet. But now that the service has launched, the reference needs to be deleted. This is standard practice on all major wiki airport articles (LHR,CDG,FRA etc.). Take a look at those articles and you'll see that virtually none of the currently active routes have citations. Citations are typically reserved for upcoming routes.

The IKA's talk page is currently protected so I had no other option than bringing it up here. Could someone apply this edit please?

118.108.175.76 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Per WP:NLT, I got to report this legal threat here. User has been warned for making the legal threat, and the page it happened on should be deleted altogether as a talk page of a deleted page. SkyWarrior 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:ThanhPeters

there were multiple issue here, i keep request to add reference to his content Beijing Enlight Media and Beijing Enlight Pictures and removing unsourced content, seem making an edit war, and found out that he has socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThanhPeters and wikicommons pattern). And now he keep on cut and paste move on Beijing Xinbaoyuan Film & Television Investment. Where should i report the issues? Matthew_hk tc 09:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I gave the user a first and final warning about blanking articles. I also blocked the 2ndry account El_C 09:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Athena1326 WP:NOTHERE

Athena1326 (already warned [140]) has repeatedly removed a cited criticism from the Noel Gallagher article ([141][142][143]). On top of this, he/she has gutted from Oasis album article (What's the Story) Morning Glory? a well-referenced mention of the Gallagher brothers' celebrity wives helping to increase their public profiles ([144]), and chopped cited text from the Slade article mentioning their influence on Oasis ([145]). Basically, Athena1326's only purpose on Wikipedia is to deify Oasis and bandleader Noel Gallagher by removing material that suggests they were bolstered/influenced by others or have musical weaknesses.

Also, an IP (probable sock) continued Athena1326's agenda at Noel Gallagher today ([146]). 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:1194:4FC:48AD:A32E (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Jvm21

• Jvm21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Casting JonBenet: vandalism after final warning; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. User created Casting JonBenet with copyvio following level 4 warning. Doesn't care about copyvio Special:Diff/764888381, nor about the level 4, Special:Diff/762590727. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Cabayi (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

cut & paste from AIV as directed Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at their edits, Jvm21 can be abrasive but is clearly here to contribute. Copyvios haven't been brought up before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"but is clearly here to contribute" - I have my doubts. This user has been brought to ANI before about this very issue. In September he was blocked for continued failure to cite sources. Shortly after that block, he continued with this pattern, which I brought to ANI again. Which included this outburst. About a week ago, he continued to add a wave of unsourced film awards to articles (example). Again, I reminded him not to do this. Which resulted in this reply. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If editors want to block the user for personal attacks or continued disruption then that can be proposed. But Jvm21 is adding content to the encyclopedia in good faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content. Despite being told not to on multiple occasions. Which is disruption and the very thing he was originally blocked for. The article in question in this very topic contains more unsourced award additions by this user. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

fpga4student.com

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#155.69.206.23
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#fpga4student.com

What is the next step if there is no response on talk:Spam-blacklist?

Also, is there a way to search to see whether links to this domain have been recently added then reverted? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A report was auto-generated by a bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/fpga4student.com as a result of the report being made on WP:SBL, which shows addition history of the link.

The "proposed additions" and "proposed removals" sections of the SBL page tend to get more visibility than the "discussions" section - that may be why nothing has been done with the report, it's falling below the radar in that section.

I'll review the blacklist page later today ... when I first gained my admin tools, that was my primary activity ... but I drifted away from it quite a while ago (sometimes, you just need a break). I think I'm ready to go back to that activity now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

• accused me of lying in an edit comment.
• shouted at me in an edit comment.
• insinuated that I am intentionally obtuse, i.e. not editing in good faith, in an edit comment.
• accused me of being condescending in an edit comment.
• Breached WP:BRD.[147][148][149]

I asked him on his talk page to stop this abuse but got a snippy rejection. He has also failed to stop making uncited edits while the content concerned is under discussion at Talk:Dual polyhedron and Talk:Polyhedron. Other editors are now joining in the discussion, but he is still sniping at me. I feel unable to continue a sensible discussion while all this is going on, it is clearly meant to intimidate me. I would ask at least for a topic ban (other editors are taking up his case so there is no danger of losing NPOV), and whatever sanctions against the abuse in the edit comments might be deemed appropriate.

Of course, if any of his complaints against me are justifiable than I will be happy to apologise as necessary, but at the moment my words are not being taken in good faith - for example a cup of tea was spurned in one of those links above - so I see little point. Certainly, no offence was intended on my part. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically, this is a content dispute; see Talk:Polyhedron and Talk:Dual polyhedron for the boring details. "Accused of lying" means, in this context, that I believe Steelpillow's preferred version of article content misleads the readers. "Intentionally obtuse" means Steelpillow's continued insistence on placing a [clarify] tag on a sentence I added, whose context (the difficulty of defining non-convex geometric duality) had already been gone over at great length in the discussion. Condescending means that Steelpillow told me to go read elementary texts on the subject of my professional expertise, and, after already having been informed that it is a subject I am familiar with, told me he was disappointed he had to remind me of things that, in actuality, I needed no reminding of — I still think "condescending" is an appropriate description of this. And under what interpretation of our guidelines is making an edit and then reinstating it a single time a breach of anything? Geometry is not a subject under 0RR restrictions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There are clear personal attacks in the edit summaries by David Eppstien. Just because you disagree with an editor is no excuse for you to call him a lier - which you did in the first diff.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "Steelpillow is a liar", an ad hominem remark about an editor (and one that I don't believe to be true — I have no reason to doubt Steelpillow's general honesty). I said "Steelpillow insists on lying to the readers", a remark aimed at the content Steelpillow preferred rather than at the person. The article content in question is technically true, but only for an appropriate and non-intuitive choice of technical definition that Steelpillow insists on omitting — this is the basis of the dispute. My position is that, without adding the qualification that I want to add, the content is very likely to cause readers to think false things. But perhaps this edit summary was infelicitously phrased. Do you have a more civil and concise way of writing "causing readers to think false things" in an edit summary? Because I stand by that statement — I believe that it is an accurate description of the content in question. It may help (or not?) to note that there is a long history in mathematics of calling misleading oversimplifications made for pedagogical purposes "lies" — that exact word — see e.g. [150]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What you need to do is talk about the content only and not about the editors. While there may be a long history of using the word "lying" and making personal attacks in mathematics and perhaps in Academia, there is no place for that sort of behaviour in a collaborative project like Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• And he's still at it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Still at what? Repeating the same claims that your preferred version of the content is misleading to readers, this time without even using the word "lie"? Yes, because I still believe it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no content claim in the edit being referred to: this can be seen in the linked diff of the "reply". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"the article stays in its misleading-to-readers state" is not a content claim? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• My diagnosis: David Eppstein's description of Steelpillow's comments as melodramatic and condescending seems accurate; I also note that Steelpillow's comment about tea, which may have been intended to be read in a friendly way, comes across as dismissive, and would have irritated me if I were the recipient. David Eppstein's responses got tetchy, and the use of the word "liar" "lying" and the all-caps were not necessary or helpful. A good outcome would be for David Eppstein to apologize for the shouting and for Steelpillow to apologize for the condescension and agree to engage better in the content discussion. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I clearly did get tetchy and shouty, and I apologize for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JBL's assessment (though the actual word used was "lying" not "liar"), and I'm glad to see that David Eppstein has apologized. I hope that Steelpillow will do likewise. Paul August ☎ 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• First and last comment: I had not edited for a long time, looked on here and was surprised to see Eppstein here. This is not just a content dispute. Eppstein probably knows the topic very well (he is pretty smart) but is worn out and acting on the edge of the insult cliff. Suggestion, give him a hard time, make him apologize 3 or 4 times but let him keep editing. He is a good mathematician, masquerading as a computer scientist and produces great content. But as a human being, if I ever met him (I am glad I never have), I would run. But close this thread after he has apologized 2 or 3 more times. He was out of line. But do not block him. He is a useful, but close to worn out by now I guess. So let him work until he really burns out. AlbertNewtonStein (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Modesikuwasi repeatedly adding unsourced and probably false information to an article

On 18 Jan an IP added to the lede of the Mohammad Mossadegh article the claim that he is regarded as the "first and last father of Persian democracy."[151] I reverted because I'd never heard of Mossadegh being described as such and asked for a source. A different IP reverted, claiming they had fixed a typo, once again without a source.[152] The original IP restored the quote with a source, which doesnt actually contain the aformentioned quote within it. The account User:Modesikuwasi then repeatedly readded this unsourced quote to the article without any explanation.[153][154] I have tried to find a source for this quote with no avail. I even searched in Persian just in case, but found nothing. I'm fairly certain it's a quote this guy made up and thinks sounds cool. I left a message on his talk page asking him to explain why he was constantly readding this quote without a source. He ignored it and added the comment in again.[155] Could something be done? --Brustopher (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I may have to look more closely at this. There appears to be a source in the last addition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't load the website so I am inclined to take your word for now that the cited source does not contain the disputed claim until something solid can be produced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Impersonation of User:BethNaught

User:Cfgvhbj is actively impersonating BethNaught at AfD. This could be a real doppleganger account, but it looks most unlikely. I have put a note on BethNaught's talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. Impersonation is something Nsmutte does often. Sro23 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)