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

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

---

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)

Support topic ban, oppose indefinite block, as follows:

• First, if the topic ban sticks the issue of NPOV editing will be resolved and a block will therefore lose any preventative quality.
• Second, if a block is imposed it will be vastly harder for EthiopianHabesha to prove their bona fides over time, sufficient that one day the topic ban may one day be lifted.
• And third, a block on top of a ban comes too close to WP:BITE, especially in a subject area with very few active editors.

I'll also add my voice to EEng's by asking that the next passing janitor put this glacial discussion out of its misery by assessing and applying the relevant consensus. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 12 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)

I wonder who the user Kraker234 (talk · contribs) is, who just tried to close this discussion? Paul August ☎ 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Well, in any event this thread is one month old today. Happy anniversary! Shall we have cake now, or have a combined Valentines Day celebration tomorrow? EEng 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks more and you may as well have gone to Arbcom. For the half-dozen people still watching, how do you feel about a topic ban without the indef block? They appear to have suspended their editing anyway, and a topic ban might address the specific POV problem while still letting them improve their editing skills elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections to an indefinite topic ban, which I'm guessing is the proposal. If, in time, the problematic editor returns, he or she can edit elsewhere to establish their good name, and/or appeal the ban at some point if circumstances warrant such. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support that too. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging everyone else who contributed to this thread: In the interests of wrapping this up, how would you feel about the compromise outcome of an indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to the Horn of Africa (including, obviously, Ethiopia and Somalia), without the concurrent indefinite block?

Pings: @Buckshot06:, @Duqsene:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @JimRenge:, @Llywrch:, @EEng:, @Robert McClenon:, @Paul August:, @EthiopianHabesha: -- Euryalus (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. For a SPA, the difference between a topic ban and an indefinite block is a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Paul August ☎ 01:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support JimRenge (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• No opinion because I haven't absorbed the thread. I was just lighting a fire under people to get things moving, which I guess I did. EEng 02:44, 14 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 ([27]), 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)
• Oppose. I genuinely despise the fact that users decide to universally not send others any sort of notification for deletions; I have dealt with angry users time and time again who've accused me of unilaterally deciding to delete a page or media file, abusing the administrator tools, being a communist/fascist/whatever, and so on. Whatever justification SwisterTwister and users with the same sentiment share is complete shit. But I simply can not stand behind the enforcement of a non-existent policy, or the implementation of an unenforceable and wildly bureaucratic one. Are we really going to start blocking users for this? "You have been blocked indefinitely for continued failure to send proper deletion notifications." That's insane. By all means, strongly encourage users to send out notifications, but trying to enforce it through policy is simply unrealistic. SwisterTwister also seriously needs to get a grip. — ξ^xplicit 01:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For this proposal to go through (with no prejudice against requiring notification in general), the relevant guidelines really should require notification first. ANI isn't the place for changing that. At the end of the day, it is a courtesy under current standards to notify the page creator, but it's also redundant to some degree. Creating a page also places it automatically on your watchlist. Plus, uninvolved editors are the ones really deciding if the page is truly notable or not. With that in mind, it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't notify a page creator. If the community wants to require notification like we do for WP:AE, etc., then make that change first. Otherwise we're putting the cart before the horse by focusing on this proposal now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 13 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)

Roll on the next report

Clearly, Beeblebrox was right in the comment on 29 Jan where it was suggested that no admin would take action. I've never participated in any of the prior ANI thread regarding ST and I do acknowledge that they do much good work... but roll on the next report. It will happen because they're fundamentally wikilawyering. Even those who support no action in this thread almost all accept that lack of notification is not how they personally do things. They, too, are basically wikilawyering. At what point does WP:IAR kick in, and WP:BITE? This is likely to be an intractable problem involving one person - it does not need a change of policy or guidance to fix it. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 13 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. [28] 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 [29] 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 [30]. 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 [31] 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" [32], 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 [33] and Moses [34] ~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)

• Just wanted to show the complete list of recent aggressive edits that were made by User:Petergstrom on the Religiosity and intelligence page [35]. User:Petergstrom disregarded the warnings, by at least 2 editors, that he had violated the 3RR. When User:Renzoy16 made the following edit summary "Removed information is relevant; User:Petergstrom has crossed WP:3RR" User:Petergstrom reverted with the following edit summary "I took it to talk, nobody cares. In actuality you have crossed 3RR" and continued to revert despite being notified by User:Renzoy16 and User:Jobas already.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 13 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)
• Support based on recent history of remarkably unilateral changes to the Religiosity and intelligence page, a pattern of behavior which I seem to remember was also characteristic of PaM. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 13 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)

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 - [36], [37], etc.) resulting in an empty category, which Marcocapelle (again, not me) nominated for deletion (see nomination [38], [39]). 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)

If you are going to ping me, then ping me correctly instead of using a red link. Otherwise, I will assume that you really were not trying to ping me. As for accusing you of being a sock, the accusation is not baseless or made in any trivial way, so don't pretend that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 13 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)

• Comment: I see no need to sanction Jobas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 13 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. [40]

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." [41]

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. [42]

jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)}: Notice on Talk:Atheism counts as "appropriate notification: The talk page of one or more directly related articles". [43]

Martin of Sheffield: ... indeed Xenophrenic's edit is calm and neutral (requesting "Informed pro & con input based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources"). [44]

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)

It is extremely hard to imagine how anyone other than perhaps Xenophrenic himself would necessarily believe that, given the nature of his involvement in this matter, he would be one anyone could call "unbiased," and the fact that he describes himself as such in the start of this subthread may be worth noting, as it may be seen by some as displaying perhaps less then exceptional self-awareness. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 13 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 [45] 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: [46]. 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: [47] and here: [48]. 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: [49], [50], [51], [52]. 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)

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:

• [53] Edit summary is aggressive and insulting
• [54] Edit summary dismisses someone's contributions as stupid
• [55] Edit summary disregards editors contribution on the basis of their previous edits
• [56] Edit summary accusation of "severe WP:VANDALISM", for an edit that does not seem at all malicious
• [57] Edit summary unnecessarily aggressive and accusers others of misleading readers (model year is a commonly used to date cars)
• [58] Edit summary is a personal attack.
• [59] Edit summary accuses other contributors of deliberately misleading readers
• [60] High level vandalism warning a minor disagreement about a fact, with no suggestion of malice in the edit [61]
• [62] As above, warning for this edit [63]
• [64] As above. Not a high level warning this time, but still no evidence of malice in the edit [65]

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)

I have to agree with Carmaker1 - I have often felt exactly the same frustration. Americans live and breathe their model year system. To them, a car released or updated in October 1990 counts as the 1991 model year (generally, the 1991 model year is from mid calendar year 1990 to mid calendar year 1991). However, most of the the world does not follow this system and finds it counter-intuitive and confusing. The automobile project decided that calendar years is the best single system to use for an international encyclopaedia instead of US specific model years. Some American editors refuse to accept that someone might use a different system and insist on using US style model years. This is in-spite of politely pointing out that large parts of the world do not follow or even understand US model years. Like Carmaker1, I too have sometimes left acidic edit summaries out of sheer frustration. Sometimes it feels like one person (plus a very small number of helpers) against every single American editor.  Stepho  talk  13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That was...a very long post. I'll admit that sometimes it would be nice if we could protect only portions of articles. However, if I'm not mistaken, in one sense I believe we can. In cases where these types of unhelpful edits are limited to infoboxes, instead of using Template:infobox automobile, I believe it's...not too difficult...to create a template specifically for, say Jaguar XX, so that the page would simply contain Template:Jaguar XX, which would display the infobox. So that anyone who wants to change dates will have to navigate to the actual template/doc, and change it there. That will probably be beyond the technical expertise of most well-meaning but mistaken newbies, and if it ends up being a case of intentional vandalism, protection can be requested for the template only, leaving the article open, which is overall a much lower bar to meet as far as "unintentional damage to the project by restricting newbies" is concerned. That's going to be extra work admittedly, but it's likely a more permanent type of work, and so much more likely to be worth it in the end.

Other than that, in cases of perennial mistakes, using <!-- hidden comments --> is usually a good first resort. It's fairly effective at dissuading good faith editors, and useful in providing evidence that bad faith editors are acting in bad faith.

It's good to be the type of person who can admit when they've just lost their cool, but we need to translate that into practical solutions, and these seems like they may be good first steps, depending on the levels and types of disruption. The last thing we want to do is turn away good faith editors, even if they're wrong, because ideally those will be the people in the trenches with you in a few months helping to maintain exactly these articles. TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some American editors make the same changes to dates in the infoboxes, dates in section titles, dates in paragraph text and dates in image captions - making the template suggestion both awkward and impractical. One practical solution we put in place is to put months into the dates (eg Production: October 1990 – August 1995). Only the most die-hard follower of the US model year system changes that to model years 1991–1995. Sadly, there are diehard followers that do just that but thankfully only a few. Another practical solution we use is to say things like "In October 1990, for the 1991 model year, ..." in paragraph text. And once again there are a few die-hards that change it to "In 1991, ..." but most Americans seem to accept this, even if grudgingly.  Stepho  talk  14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately niche subjects tend to attract niche vandalism...or...niche unhelpful editing as the case may be. In case you've never come across a genre vandal...and there have been a whole helluva lot of them, well, consider yourself lucky. Some users will come here and do nothing but mass change the genre of bands on scores of articles.

But at any rate, that's probably a discussion better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. As long as Carmaker1 recognizes that they were getting a little out of hand, and agrees to dial it back, and try to find ways to solve the problem, including leaving appropriate level warnings and using appropriate edit summaries, then I think we can probably start to shut down this thread. It's OK to be wrong, so long as you admit when you are and take steps to fix it. TimothyJosephWood 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Help please: Dealing with filibustering at WP:COMICS

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

---

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 ([66]), 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 ([67]), 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 ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72]).

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 ([73]). 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, [74] 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)
    • @Curly Turkey and Darkknight2149: Is it possible that the difficulty is partly because something is not clear? I know that may sound crazy given how much the both of you have had to clarify your positions. Are you sure both of you understand each others' positions? Perhaps you should try independently summarizing your own position and the other's position (in a neutral, non-judgmental manner) to see how they size up. That may reveal something like, "Oh, I thought they wanted to do this, but they actually don't. I guess I was wrong about that." On the issue of someone else not understanding your position or making it sound like something it is not, I understand it's normal to rebut and correct-- this is Wikipedia after all. I think some of that is OK, but after a while, you need to disengage and trust that if a single editor doesn't get it, other editors will understand you just fine. And if there aren't other editors involved, involve them through RfCs. That strategy is a much better course of action than persistently trying to make the person "get it" to the point where it spirals out of control into a big old insultfest that internet discourse is so well known for. We should do better than that. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @I JethroBT: That probably is how this all started. However, the problem is no longer about me and Turkey. Right now, the only dispute is this heated thread, which should have already been closed. It has served it's purpose and has become even more toxic than the initial dispute between me and Turkey. DarkKnight2149 16:28, 13 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)

@Drmies: I've never seen that kind of remedy before, but I could get behind that idea. There's been an attempt been an attempt at following these steps, but it hasn't worked, and I do not see either party deciding to willingly disengage. Both parties have had ample time to use the dispute resolution noticeboard, but have not. If we are confident that both parties are capable of finding a more productive way to engage with each other (you'll note that not everyone here is), forcing discussion between the two of them seems like the right idea. FWIW, I've worked with Curly productively before on topic areas where we've disagreed, so I know he is not always like this. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:I JethroBT it's a crazy idea and will probably never work, which means that if all else fails, we should give it a shot. Remember Jerusalem in World War Z? Softlavender, here you go. I'm hoping to get my copy signed in April. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And there are plenty of other editors that would say the same about me. But a select few editors have decided to change the focus of the mutual dispute to try and turn this into a "Darkknight2149 is evil" thread. Ironically, the dispute between me and CT is over at the moment. The only dispute now is here, and this discussion should have been closed already. As I've been saying, this discussion needs to end. DarkKnight2149 17:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Curly Turkey from all comics pages and discussions

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

---

• 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)
  • "Far more patient and civil." - Whatever you say. 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)

Not a personal attack, and not worth blanking. Just an off-topic piece of irrelevant conspiriology with a bizarre piece of non-evidence. I wouldn't accept this explanation if it wasn't what I've come to expect from this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I searched for a bit, but I couldn't find who restored the above personal attack against Curly Turkey. Given that in the past two months I've had at least three good-faith users getting up in my face about their super-strict interpretation of TPO (which completely ignores any wiggle-room to accommodate RPA), it would be unfair to assume that whoever restored the personal attack was the same user who originally posted it, but it wouldn't surprise me. That said, whoever did it did so without disclosing that they had done it, and so was being a bit hypocritical if their rationale was TPO-based: they indirectly refactored my comment by removing the context in which it was written and not inserting any kind of explanation. I don't like being made to look the fool who said they had removed a personal attack when the personal attack was still there for all to see. I won't revert the un-removal, but someone else should remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • @Hijiri88: That isn't a personal attack, you just misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not calling anyone impatient and uncivil. I was quoting what you said, and providing a diff that shows your self-admitted bias (CT, until now, hasn't been either patient or civil). I don't recall who restored the comment but they were correct to do so.

That being said, I've trying to end this discussion, not keep it going. DarkKnight2149 03:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that clears that up, and pointing out my bias is not a personal attack -- it's just really uncivil to do it as many times as you have, and apparently more IDHT given that it looks like you are trying to "expose" some hidden conspiracy that the rest of us have been trying to hide when in fact not only was I upfront about my bias but several other users pointed out to you how upfront I was. It also really wasn't clear that demonstrating bias was what you were doing, since if you wanted to do that you should have linked the comment in this thread where I specifically said I was biased, not that other one that ... well, Drmies already told you to stop citing it, since it's pretty obvious you don't understand our canvassing policy and why that comment was not in violation of it. That's enough anyway -- you shouldn't have posted the above comment for a bunch of reasons, but per your explanation one of them wasn't NPA, and so I won't blank it again. Please be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that I provided diffs and a detailed explanation for the only other person I said was factioning. But yeah, after this disaster, I probably will take more caution in the future. DarkKnight2149 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Whatever you say" and a link to an old diff that you have been thoroughly told off for repeatedly misrepresenting is not "a detailed explanation". If you post something that looks like a personal attack, and the only way it can be taken as anything other than a personal attack is by accepting a bizarre explanation that I only accept because I have experience of the way you write about other users' behaviour, you should not be surprised if it gets blanked as a personal attack. Your behaviour since posting the above shows you are not being any more careful than before. You should knock it off, or you'll soon find yourself with some form of sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. And my explanation wasn't bizarre at all. The point of the post was that those words coming from you aren't trustworthy. And the diff proved such. You even admitted yourself that you are biased in this discussion. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I know it wasn't a personal attack, as I already specified above. But the only reason I now accept it wasn't a personal attack was because I accept that, according to your bizarre logic, the diff you provided demonstrated some sort of bias on my part. The diff only showed (1) that CT and I have interacted before, but it's about the most mundane diff of that you could find) and (2) that I am willing to comment on your disruptive and biased edits to comics articles that deny or downplay any outside-comics influence. I only accept that you think it demonstrates bias on my part because I know you have a tendency not to interpret comments as actually meaning what they say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 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)

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

• @Someguy1221: Would you mind withdrawing this proposal and closing this subthread? It's pretty obvious that the proposal is not going to pass at this point as it's been opposed by myself and two others and has received no support. I apologize for asking you to withdraw it, but if I just posted a "Please close" the odds of anyone seeing it and being willing to read through the above off-topic tangent to determine whether they actually should SNOW close this are extremely slim, but at this point the subthread is serving no purpose but to allow DK to continue nitpicking over something I have already retracted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that I'd already gotten my wish. I don't know what happened. Drmies must have saved his edit in the brief instant between when I clicked "Edit" and when the edit screen loaded. I didn't notice the archive template (it's a lot less obvious in black and white). Anyway, thank you Drmies and apologies to Someguy1221 for an unnecessary ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My reading of interactions since the last ANI

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

---

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)

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

Proposal: Topic ban of User:Darkknight2149

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

---

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: [75]. 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)

You mean the meaning that you invented? And sactions for what? You should have proven those dead-end canvass claims when you had the chance. It's over now. And so is this discussion. I think my posts here from here-on-out will be minimal. If you want to keep this going, you will now be doing so on your own accord. DarkKnight2149 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: I did not make canvassing claims, Curly Turkey did. And the community and Drmies agreed with the claim. If you want to verify what exactly Twitbookspacetube meant by this, just ask him. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm starting to see where WP:CIR can apply to DK. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:02, 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 ([76], [77], [78], [79]). 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%[80] 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 ([81]). I also never hatted anything, except for reverting you when you tried to edit a closed discussion ([82]). I was not the only one to do so, and I did not put the hat there to begin with ([83]). 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 [84] [85] 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 ([86], [87], [88], [89]) 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 ([90]). 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 [91]). 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 [92] 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)
• One final comment: The final thing I'll say is that comics have been the primary topic that I have edited for my nearly three years of editing, with little incident. Banning me from the entire topic due to one conflict without even addressing the other user would be nearly as foolish as banning me in general. Of course, this entire thread served its purpose a while ago and the debate at WP:COMICS is going smoothly now, but other editors insist on keeping it going. Well, I guess they can keep it going on their own accord. I'm done here. Unless I am giving a great reason to return, you can expect very minimal (by which I mean little to none) responses from me here now. This thread can serve no purpose any longer. DarkKnight2149 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning oppose because what's the TBAN meant to achieve exactly? Support TBAN as ROPE - You should have proven those dead-end canvass claims when you had the chance <- the straw that broke the camel's back. You've been denying those claims ad nauseam despite the statements of almost everybody involved at the first AN/I thread, several user talk pages and this AN/I thread. Here's exactly what you should have done yesterday when things started going sour: shut up and open a thread at WP:DR. What has been done instead: re-litigate old discussions, accuse an editor of meatpuppetry, repeatedly claim that everyone is IDHT except for them, and most relevantly here of all battleground. These are the signs of an editor who is flailing and not listening. All of the above and below are demonstrative of this to such an extent that I don't only not need to provide diffs, but, by the time you get to my comment (assuming you read from top to bottom) will have already seen this amply enough. This needs to stop, immediately. My not openly supporting this proposal is solely and absolutely down to the fact that I don't know what purpose a TBAN is meant to serve. This issue is not due to the topic of comics it's due to editor's behaviour which, right now, is spread across the encyclopaedia - comics, AfD, user talk (Drmies for example), and AN/I. I'd think a time-out would serve a far better purpose in getting it through to the editor that all of the above, below, and elsewhere is not acceptable and that the community will not put up with it. You have a clean block log and have otherwise been a productive editor, so I hate to recommend a block, but, it's either a TBAN, a block, or you stop and reconsider. On your talk page you have the UBX {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}. Well, it's no good having that UBX if you don't abide by it. You have made mistakes, several of them, you have had these mistakes laboriously explained to you by editors, several of them, over the course of the last few days. Now is the time to stop, take a step back, contemplate the issues others are having with you and begin comprehending them. They are not figments of their imagination, they are quite real and quite plain. No more IDHT, start IHT (I hear that). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, no, Mr rndude. Blocks MUST be preventative. This dispute existed only between me, Turkey and the topic of debate, then it spilled over here. This dispute now exists exclusively here, because the incivility between me and Turkey has now ended. For this reason, I won't be responding here any longer, because this thread has served its purpose. And no, I will not say that I canvassed simply because you accuse me of it. That's not a block-able offense; blocking for that would be purely punitive. You only need to see the discussion at User talk:Drmies to see that this canvassing thing will never come up unless you keep bringing it up. If you want me to stop denying it, then drop it. Plain and simple. DarkKnight2149 03:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for a block because you canvassed (WP:IDGAF what you think of it), or because you IDHT'ed your way through this, but, because this is a) causing immense disruption, b) you've levelled accusations at several editors including the one directly below me in what I can only describe as bad faith (WP:AGF and WP:NPA), and c) you have a battleground mentality as is amply exhibited by your insistence on the existence of "factions" opposing you. The IDHT just so happens to be the root of the disease. I don't know if you've been reading this thread (you're either not reading or not comprehending), but, this stopped being about your dispute with Curley Turkey three subsections ago. For that matter IDHT is a blockable offense, Per IDHT; If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. Whether you see it or don't, in the eyes of the community they've spent enough time "cleaning" up your mistakes and "educating" you on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Aside from the TBAN I'm adding a recommendation to instate a 2 week block for causing disruption, making several personal attacks and accusations without evidence, and the absolute refusal to listen to the point that it has exhausted community patience. Stop! you are in the Marianas trench. I would retract the block request if I saw even a single iota of evidence that something (any of the above) is getting through to this editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• • Basically, the TBAN gives them enough rope and allows them a (possibly undue) chance to show that they can do more than just disrupt. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Mr rnddude Note that I am now only responding to this toxic discussion when I absolutely have to. I didn't make faction claims without evidence. I provided all of the diffs with my arguments in my intial claim. And given that this dispute is now self-contained here, a topic ban is useless. And, again, a block would not be preventive in any way, shape, or form. Blocking policies are not up for debate. And defending myself against claims does not constitue "personal attacks" (and notice that I am now only responding to you here). The dispute between me and Curly is over. The purpose of this tiresome dispute has been met. Why do you insist on keeping it going? DarkKnight2149 04:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocking policies are not up for debate - I absolutely agree; IDHT, disruptive, NPA, CIR, and battleground are blockable per the blocking policy. Specifically; prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia and deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. I have no more to say. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Admirable. I'm fine with the TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • I just explained how a block wouldn't be preventitive of anything (that is IDHT). Defending myself does not constitute personal attacks and I am more than compitent. "I have no more to say" - THANK YOU! I, too, am moving on. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you approve. I'm seriously considering pinging an admin to hand out that two week block for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption. I've seen editors banned for just one of those! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point, that may be a better idea. Looking at DK's contribs, almost all of his editing is on comics. So a topic ban is not going to leave him much to do. At this point, the overall disruption and the other problems are continuing rather than abating, and a two-week block for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption would probably be more appropriate than anything else. If someone starts a proposal, we could see if there is consensus for that. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • Again, a block would NOT be preventive and a topic ban would be pointless (if anything, there should be an ANI ban because this is where the conflict is). Most of my edits are comic related, but I also edit articles pertain to horror, Star Wars and fiction in general BTW. DarkKnight2149 04:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Still doing it, folks: [93]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• It's clear that I have to avoid you to avoid conflict. - DK Facepalm Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Question for Curly Turkey: DarkKnight has made exactly 7 posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics since the opening of this ANI. He has made 100 posts to this ANI thread. He claims that discussions are proceeding smoothly on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Do you consider that this topic ban is advisable or that it will achieve anything? I'm asking because if you do not think so, or if you do not answer, I am going to withdraw my support of a topic ban on someone whose nearly entire edit history is that topic. I believe DK has a serious problem with disruption and blatant difficulty being WP:HONEST when pressured, but I am not convinced that currently barring him from his main editing field is the correct action unless you believe it is. I think DK's multitudinous problematic behaviors are more appropriately controllable via a block; either now, or if he ever gets reported again. He has spread his disruption and dishonesty across this thread and other pages as well, and does not seem to have the self-control to prevent himself from continuing to do so if he meets the least bit of confrontation. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A painful question to answer. I don't have a crystal ball. The new discussion at WP:COMICS has progressed without incident in the short time it has been open. Yet DK also denies having done anything wrong, and has left quite the number of accusations open. That's basically how the last ANI discussion about him ended ... and here we are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, here we are: and now his disruption has exploded into approximately 200 disruptive and, increasingly, dishonest edits across not only this entire ANI, but a few other pages as well, in the short time this ANI has been open. His inability to be collegial is much in evidence. In my mind 7 posts are insufficient proof that he will not revert to behaving as he has behaved with the past 150+ edits outside of that currently structured environment of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. The question is, does he do any valuable work in the comics field? Or not? If he does. then maybe a topic ban is too broad, and maybe a series of increasingly long blocks are the solutions to his disruption and the immense drain it is making on the community. Please share your thoughts on this, Curly Turkey. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
      • He works in superheroes; I work in arts comics. Our paths rarely cross, and never in article space, so I can't comment on the quality of his work. Hijiri has indicated in this discussion that he has interacted with DK over content. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I only posted this because I was mentioned immediately above and it seemed like my comment was being requested. I don't want to make this discussion any more unreadable than it already is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That I have, but I really don't want this to hinge on my testimony. I don't edit comics articles much in general, and not enough to actively seek sanctions for users I come in conflict with, even if it is obvious that they either do not understand or are consciously rejecting our content policies and clearly have no respect for our conduct policies. On those fronts, DK is disruptive, but he isn't even the worst I have encountered. Several of the users he canvassed back in December are, in my experience, much more dense when it comes to their sourcing standards, clearly either don't know how to or don't want to write articles that Wikipedia's readership would want to read, and are even more aggressive and uncivil than DK. I have never (as far as I remember) opened an ANI thread on any of them because I would generally prefer to spend my time writing articles and giving up on whatever dispute I am currently having with said editors and moving on to something else is usually more conducive to my doing that. CT knows what I am talking about because almost this exact thing happened on a non-comics article we were both working on back in 2015. I don't want to name names, but the first paragraph of our Avengers: Age of Ultron article being currently unreadable (in the sense that no sane person would want to read each word of it from start to finish) can at least partly be blamed on my having given up on the article in frustration with various editors on the talk page. But that's really another matter. DK by himself, even if he could credibly blame the toxic environment of WP:COMICS for having given him the wrong idea of how collation on Wikipedia is supposed to work, deserves some sort of sanction. Maybe, if he were TBANned from comics, he could go find some other articles to contribute to and see how the rest of the project works and if he has some decent contributions under his belt he could appeal his ban a few months down the line. For obvious reasons, I am sympathetic to anyone who doesn't want to be TBANned from an area that accounts for more than 90% of their past contributions to the project, but I also recognize that sometimes that's just what has to happen, at least in the short term. For exactly this reason, if the above "a few months down the line" scenario comes credibly to pass, I would not only happily support DK's ban appeal; I would request its repeal myself. But first he has to stop denying/deflecting all criticism of his behaviour and lying about, e.g., canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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 ([94], [95], [96], [97]). 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)

Curly Turkey, is "the disruptive behaviour that has prevented progress on the 'comics/fictional character conflict'" resolved, in your estimation? Or not? Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note I have posted at WP:AN [98] asking for more input and, ultimately, a closer for this thread. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, a closing is long overdue. To the admin closing this, I can only ask that you consider both sides very carefully before deciding on anything drastic, such as a ban. DarkKnight2149 16:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Final warning about IDHT

Non-constructive bickering struck per requestJbh 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: [99]. 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)

@Darkknight2149: I didn't notice this until just now, but you need to remove this from your user page. It's not a POLEMIC violation, but if you really want people to think you've dropped the IDHT act you shouldn't be saying things like a rather unproven accusation from early 2017 and some editors falsely believe that I may have done so in the past on your user page. You canvassed. If you would rather just forget about the incident, don't brag about it on your user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie and say that I intended to canvass simply because you're trying to bully me into doing so. The note is there to inform everyone that I'm against vote stacking. DarkKnight2149 14:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: 2 week block for User:Darkknight2149

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

---

Per the evidence above and below, I propose that Darkknight be blocked for 2 weeks to PREVENT continued disruption, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and elements of WP:CIR. This will allow reasonable discussion to occur here and elsewhere, and hopefully allow enough time for a consensus to be reached. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE 1: Twitbook just confirmed below that he wants me blocked in order to punish me (his word). This is on top of the fact that he tried to canvass administrators into blocking me outside of the discussion, as seen below with diffs. DarkKnight2149 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE 2: I should also point out that nearly all of the one sided proposals against me have been made by Twitbookspacetube, who contradicted his own defense for Curly Turkey in the process. A thread about a now ended mutual incivility between me and Turkey has turned into an exclusive Darkknight2149 thread. DarkKnight2149 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE 3: As if things couldn't get any worse, Twitbookspacetube just left a Wiki Love message to Curly Turkey for his part in the dispute. DarkKnight2149 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTE 4: After this new evidence against him came to light, Twitchbook attempted to retaliate by opening a new thread. DarkKnight2149 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

*Recuse - I am now involved here so I will do the right thing and recuse myself from this whole mess. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposing a sanction does not in any way preclude anyone from !voting on the sanction. Most proposals are followed by a "Support as nominator" !vote. Nor does having been heavily involved in an ANI thread preclude one from !voting. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

True. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Again, for the reasons mentioned by me above, a block would NOT be preventative. And it's over. Me and Turkey are now discussing the matter civilly, and the ONLY conflict is here at this discussion (and this doesn't happen on a regular basis in my nearly three years of editing). Just let it end already. DarkKnight2149 05:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The disruption here has been endless and unrelenting, and we are only one day in. And that is blockable. And it is not just here, it is also here, here, here, and here. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

None of those links are valid:

• This was me trying to remove my comments after Twitbook said I wasn't allowed at his Talk Page. This was after I responded to his message on my Talk Page. I quickly dropped the situation.
• This was me leaving an edit war warning on Turkey's talk page after I recieved one for the same edit war in which he was involved.
• This was me asking a genuine question. As you can obviously see, I was unaware it was an archive.
• Here, I did absolutely NOTHING wrong. You responded to an earlier comment that I made. I decided to clarify what I meant while also agreeing with you. You then attacked me for no reason.

DarkKnight2149 05:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can see the actual truth of the situation by clicking on each of my links. People know by now not to trust what you say, and your misrepresentation here is in keeping with previous misrepresentations. All of the venues I submitted are indeed very valid and obvious evidence of disruption, most of them continued disruption. Anyone can see exactly the full behavior that is going on in each by simply clicking the links I provided. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone can click the links to see the truth. DarkKnight2149 06:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin Comment - I wish to note that User:Twitbookspacetube (or someone purporting to be him) requested an admin block User:Darkknight2149 in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. I have no stake in this disagreement, however, as I raised in the IRC channel at the time, the weakness of IRC is that not all involved parties are present and there is generally not a record kept of discussion. Therefore this note is left as a courtesy to allow for as much of a transparent record as is possible. Mifter (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Going behind our backs to request a block elsewhere, instead of letting the discussion play out? Now that is disruptive. Especially after Twitbook said that he would recuse himself from this proposal. DarkKnight2149 06:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, this IRC conversation occurred prior to User:Twitbookspacetube making this block proposal. Mifter (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay. This is still unacceptable, though, because Twitbook should have let the discussion play out instead of trying to bypass it without us knowing. DarkKnight2149' 06:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, for WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and general disruption, especially based on the continued disruptive repeated blatant lying on various pages, and even as we speak (above). This is getting genuinely ridiculous and the community should not have to waste any more time on dealing with it. When a user deliberately fails to be WP:HONEST so repeatedly and so cavalierly and so knowingly, the community needs to rescind their editing rights, both to protect the community and to prevent disruption. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC); edited 08:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, defending myself against accusations is NOT disruptive and I am being honest. Why is this discussion still going? It's already served its purpose and all it's doing now is raising tensions. Let. It. Die. Nothing constructive can come from this. DarkKnight2149 06:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lying, and continuing to lie, is disruptive; you are not being honest. This discussion is continuing because you are still being disruptive; you could have avoided sanctions by dropping the stick approximately 150 posts ago. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been the one trying to end this this entire time. I've been saying that this discussion has served its purpose and that it should be closed. Instead, I've been met with needless accusation after accusation. That's the only thing keeping this going. So I say again: We should ALL drop the accusations so that we can walk away. There's no reason to continue. DarkKnight2149 06:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Which only proves that, despite at least two people advising you to read WP:HOLES, you did not do so. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - this isn't an Arbcom case, there is nothing for me to recuse from! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Problem: Twitbook has gone behind our backs to request a block at IFC instead of letting the discussion play out (see above). This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. By trying to bypass the discussion without anyone knowing, they have contaminated the proposal. DarkKnight2149 06:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He didn't contaminate anything or prevent any "discussion from play[ing] out". He apparently acted on Mrrnddude's unofficial proposal. This was before anyone had opened a thread with a formal block proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct SL, he had responded to my comment and expressed the intent of getting an admin to consider it. An admin will consider this proposal alongside everything else. It will be their responsibility alone to determine what actions to take based on everything that has been said. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This proposal is clearly compromised at this point. Twitbook just tried to bypass the discussion again. If they continue to try and canvass administrators, action may be needed. DarkKnight2149 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note for the closing admin, the diff above pertains to Twitbook's comment on the AN thread where JBH has requested a close of this AN/I thread. Twitbook has not tried to bypass this discuss as is evident from the diff. That's two bogus claims of them trying to bypass the discussion that DK has levelled now - the first one up above took place before the proposal was made and was in direct response to my comment recommending a two week block. Appropriate? probably not, being used as a bypass to the discussion? no, the discussion was to run in conjunction to the block and not being used as a substitute for it at all. In other words, it was not a ploy at getting something back at DK with everything else failing, but rather, an immediate attempt to prevent further disruption and to allow this discussion to proceed without the hindrance of constant bickering that has now been strewn across eight sub-sections in an apparent attempt to overburden it with false accusations of misdeeds/misbehaviour that has been levelled at every single editor who has commented here. Really all you have to do is read the OP, it alone describes this quite well. I will, however, also note that Twitbook's claim of forumshopping in the linked post is equally bogus because, again, the request was for an administrator to close the discussion made on the administrator's noticeboard pertaining to this discussion on a subpage of the administrator's noticeboard. It's the same forum. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - per my comments in one of the subthreads above, my comment is linked for perusal; [100]. Please refer to all of the discussion above and below that comment as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Again: A block would NOT be preventative. I have never been known for disruptive behaviour. This is a self contained dispute. This sort of occurance is not regular, so there is no point in a block. And the purpose of this discussion has been fulfilled. It's over. This discussion is now the only place where this debate is taking place and it should have been closed by now. When this case closes, there will be no dispute. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It is patently untrue that you've never been known for disruptive behavior; you've been on a disruptive streak since at least the beginning of this year. This is the second time this year you've been taken to ANI, and you've spread your disruption across several pages, including, since the start of this ANI, the pages I linked to above. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean the canvass thread that was, once again, a symptom of the mutual incivility between me and Turkey (that isn't even taking place now)? And please, name an instance before the Turkey-Darkknight dispute in which I was genuinely disruptive. DarkKnight2149 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - As you can see above and below, the relevant user is insisting on replying to everything posted here, and continuing to attempt to filibuster this very discussion by providing more evidence of their WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Insisting to reply and continuing to attempt to filibuster." As you can see above, they apparently think that they are allowed to make or invent whatever claims they want, and defending myself in any way is disruptive. Lately, I've been the one trying to end this discussion. I am simply making this note for the closing admin, as this has been going on the entire dispute. DarkKnight2149 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral - One thing I have to say now. DROP THE STICK! —JJBers 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This discussion has served its purpose and should have been closed a while ago. All it's doing now is raising tensions. Nothing constructive can come from this. The mutual incivility between me and Turkey has ceased. And so should this. DarkKnight2149 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support block until this thread is closed, not two-week block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

But support two-week block if the alternative is to do nothing. Assuming this thread gets closed with a ban, a final warning, or some other similar, a separate block would not serve a preventative function. But given that the "I never did anything wrong, and there was no community consensus to that effect" IDHT act has continued, indeed grown worse, since the last ANI discussion, letting him off with another slap on the wrist would not be a good idea. A block would at least force him to recognize that his behaviour is disruptive and consider changing the way he behaves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri's self-collapsed TLDR elaboration

While my earlier belief that DK was already on his final warning about IDHT turned out to be mistaken, he has definitely been behaving dsruptively enough in this thread alone to merit a block, at least long enough for the community to figure out how to deal with the issue wothout him filibustering. But "two weeks" seems arbitrary. If something prevented the discussion from being closed before that time, a two-week block would not prevent him from coming back and filibustering after the block expires. Conversely, if this thread was closed tomorrow (and I think the result is obvious -- all that's needed is an admin to read through the long discussion), a two-week block would not serve a preventative function. Any block that is not meant specifically to prevent him from filibustering might be taken as punitive. All that said, if for some bizarre reason the thread is closed without result (weirder things have happened on ANI), unblocking to allow him to continue filibustering WT:COMICS should be discouraged. My support for an altered term is conditional on this whole discussion getting a proper close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC) FTR, I think "two weeks" is a good initial length, but if and when this discussion gets closed with an indefinite TBAN the block should be removed, and if it looks like this discussion will not be closed before two weeks run out it should be increased a week at a time. I sympathize with the users who think his disruption is significant enough that he should be blocked in the hopes that he learns his lesson, but I think it's unnecessary if he has a clear TBAN whose violation will lead to a block. I am also fully aware that any admin who reads this subsection is as likely to read my comments or read the whole section and close with a ban, so my proposed amendment may be completely pointless. Please do not point this out to me. I also know that, if my comments here serve any purpose in that scenario, it would be to cause the closing admin not to block. I really think DK deserves a block, especially after all the shit he's put me through (let alone everyone else), but I must !vote consistently based on policy, and not hold my tongue in the hopes that a closer will administer "justice" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Small NOTE: I didn't hat the above comment and I'm not sure who did. Not that it's a big deal, but I didn't want any confusion among administraters. I don't think I've hatted anything in this thread, actually. DarkKnight2149 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC) I did. I recognize that posting TLDR comments is not in my interests, so I self-collapsed. I thought that was obvious. Anyway, if you are going to respond to a self-collapsed comment, you should do so within the collapse. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose of my self-collapse. I appreciate that in this case your not doing so was accidental, but I would ask you not to move this back out of the collapse now that I have moved it in. I have expanded the collapse title to make it clear that it was a self-done. That said, even if I don't think I've hatted anything in this thread, actually is technically accurate, you did, a little while ago, edit-war on the Joker AFD over collapsing my comments, and in the section just above you promoted (both by comments and apparently a WP:THANK) edit-warring to maintain a non-neutral hat title. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Support If topic ban does not pass or in addition to topic ban. DK just does not know when to quit and needs a wake up call. He really should have let this die down while waiting for this to close rather than responding to every little thing. Hopefully by showing DK that his behavior here has been sanctioned for being unacceptable it will prevent repetition of the behavior in the future and the disruption it causes. I do not think a block will really achieve much. The IDHT seems to be intrinsic to DK's editing style and a two week block is not going to change that. The proposed topic ban is a sanction that will allow DK to learn and demonstrate new collaboration skills over time instead of simply waiting out two weeks and not modifying his behavior.

  Personally I think DK is on his way to an indef if his behavior does not change drastically so I prefer sanctions that allow him to continue editing and grow as an editor rather than embark on the trail of escalating blocks which will, with near certainty, result in Wikipedia losing him as am editor. When he is not caught up in a conflict like this he does good work and provides good insights so losing him would be a true loss rather than just the obligatory 'oh we don't want to lose editors' one is expected to say in these situations. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per my statements above and the continued disruption. But we should, at least, call this what it is, a community ban for two weeks. I'd suggest to DK that regardless of how this shakes out that they back down before this turns into an indef ban. The rope has now drawn tight.--Adam in MO Talk 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocks must be preventative. That is none negotiable. A self contained, and frankly unusual, dispute like this does not warrant a block to a single party in a mutual debate, especially when that debate has ended. The only debate is here; myself and multiple other editors have already called for a close to this discussion. DarkKnight2149 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said this is really a community ban which has no such strictures. Did you even read my comment? Nope, don't answer that.--Adam in MO Talk 01:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
      • You said "Support" on the block proposal. And a ban would also be gratuitous, especially if I'm the only one banned (a discussion about a now ended mutual dispute has devolved into a DK2149 hate thread; why is this still going?). DarkKnight2149 02:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet more IDHT: "I didn't do anything wrong, so no matter what happens to me it's gratuitous". You can't call "punitive" on a block proposal while actively continuing the behaviour that led to the block proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't misquote me, please. And yeah, I get your position that this dispute is entirely my fault. DarkKnight2149 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Continued accusations and escalating one sided proposals are what's keep this going. An admin should make a decision (if any) and close the discussion. There is no longer anything constructive to accomplish here. DarkKnight2149 22:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Addition - this shows that there is a persistent problem with WP:IDHT since the last ANI. Twitbookspacetube 09:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure you weren't even involved in the last discussion, which you refuse to drop. Seriously, it's over. You can WP:DROPIT now. And the note clearly says that I'm against vote stacking. DarkKnight2149 13:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, DK, YOU need to drop it. Take that silly lie off your user page. You canvassed. Everyone except you agreed that you canvassed. You were explicitly told by an admin to stop claiming that you hadn't canvassed. Even if said admin didn't say he would block you if you kept lying like that, he did tell you to stop. You can't tell other people to drop it when you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who has read this discussion can clearly see that you are the one who keeps mentioning the canvass debacle. And yes, I did have some supporters. I'm not allowing this canvass thing to continue. It's over; don't expect any more replies from me on the matter. Any attempts to edit my user page will be met with generic Talk Page warnings, followed by a report (if done continuously). THIS is dropping the stick. DarkKnight2149 21:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, anyone who has read this discussion (specifically the closed off section about this particular problem) can clearly see me saying Just so it's clear, I didn't decide to propose [a final warning about IDHT] 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. And if you say something on your user page, it is taken as an up-to-date statement of which you approve; if someone asks you to remove it, and you refuse, that is the same as your having added it today. If you really have dropped the stick and don't want it to be brought up again, you should remove it from your user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: trainwreck, wait for review of proposed changes to relevant MOS and/or go to ArbCom

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

---

First, I notice that there now exists discussion at WT:COMICS, started by @Argento Surfer:, who I think deserves serious applause for starting it, regarding possible changes to the comics MOS. as well as a proposal by SMcCandlish to work on developing the MOS for fiction in general, for which he also deserves applause. It looks to me like Darkknight2149's questioned comments and alleged stonewalling are basically an attempt to adhere to the existing MOS for comics for the most part, and I honestly can't see a lot of reason for sanctioning someone for trying to adhere to MOS. I personally can't say that I necessarily see any reason to think this questioned conduct would continue if the relevant MOS were clearly different or reviewed and clearly defined for the specific content involved. On that basis, I can't see a lot to be accomplished by sanctioning him at this time. Curly Turkey's conduct might be seen as some as a lot less than optimal too, but I don't have a lot of reason to think it would necessarily continue if the existing MOS were clarified in a way which directly addressed the concerns regarding the subject under discussion. That being the case, I don't know that I see a lot to be gained at this point by sanctioning him either. If we could get focused attention on the fiction MOS, either with or without help from ArbCom, that would probably be the best way forward. Alternately, I suppose, if it came down to that, having ArbCom take up the case and maybe set some sort of sanctions for some editors for the topic area until such time as MOS issues can be resolved might work as well. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The whys of the disruption really do not matter. Pretty much everyone can justify their views on a controversial issue. DK has shown throughout this ANI that they are incapable of restraining themself or of understanding what behavior people are objecting to. The content dispute is irrelevant to whether DK should be sanctioned, his existing, objectionable behavior is why sanctions have been proposed. Jbh ^Talk 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me defending myself against accusations. I am allowed to do so. I'm also not the only person in the wrong. My vast contribution history proves that I can collaborate with others. What you are not getting at is that this is a single dispute that has been kept going by continued allegations and one sided proposals. Why was this turned into a Darkknight2149 thread? It was a mutual dispute. DarkKnight2149 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I should probably also point out that both ANI threads (including this one) were extensions of the uncivil content dispute between me and Turkey. That mutual incivility was the problem to begin with. Please do not pretend that you know me based on this discussion. DarkKnight2149 16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support A perfectly reasonable solution. This is a single dispute in my prolific and reputable career on Wikipedia. Right now things have been going better at WP:COMICS; I think me and Curly Turkey are finally moving forward civilly. However, some decided to turn this discussion about a mutual dispute into a Darkknight2149 thread and right now, the only dispute is here. This discussion should have been closed a while ago.

Some people think that giving me an unnecessary block or ban will somehow "teach me a lesson", but in all actuality, it would be entirely gratuitous and a complete waste of a productive editor's (me) time. DarkKnight2149 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: I should also mention that, in addition to the above proposal, I would also support having IBANs between me and Softlavender, as well as me and Twitbook, if simply as a precaution to keep this dispute dead after closure (though it really shouldn't come back up). DarkKnight2149 16:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A topic ban or a ban between me and Curly Turkey would be counter-productive. DarkKnight2149 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - Trainwreck means DK goes unpunished for their ACTIVE ongoing disruption. Besides which, Arbcom is for when other measures such as discussion, topic bans and blocks fail to stop disruption. If DK continues their disruption in this area after a block, then we can bring it there. Twitbookspacetube 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is nothing constructive about "punishing users". That's not Wikipedia is about. Blocks must be preventative. And yes, this discussion is very much a trainwreck. DarkKnight2149 22:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Denying a proposal because a certain user will "go unpunished" is clear WP:GRUDGE behaviour. Administrators should also note that this was Twitbookspacetube's response when a ban was proposed on Curly Turkey. You can clearly see the biased contradiction. DarkKnight2149 22:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
      • (e-c) I have to agree blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Also, at least in my own thinking, if the matter were sent to ArbCom and they requested MOS on fiction or similar be worked on, I think that might get more interest in that field, which itself would very possibly prevent some discussions similar to this one in the future. And removing someone who might be useful in such a MOS discussion early seems to me to be maybe counterproductive. That is, of course, if it were to go to ArbCom and they made a request for some more detailed fiction MOS. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

What Hijiri said. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Darkknight2149 stalking my edits, seems to have personal vendetta Since I don't want to make the above thread about this user any more TL;DR and this is technically a separate issue anyway, I'll raise it in a new section. The above mentioned user has been rather blatantly stalking my edits and actively twisting my words. See here, here, here and here for just a few of the more recent examples. This is clearly an ongoing problem with the above mentioned user, and shows active refusal to get the point. Is it possible to get some kind of action taken over this? Twitbookspacetube 00:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Oh, son of a... @Twitbookspacetube: You should probably wait for the above thread to be closed, and see if the problem continues. It is related to the above discussion, as he was doing the same thing to me and CT several weeks ago (Ctrl+F "canvas" in the archives of CT and Drmies' talk pages), and has continued doing it to us in the above thread (Ctrl+F "bias" on this page). Ideally, whatever sanction he gets out of the above thread will make him reconsider his actions in relation to pretty much everyone who has a problem with his edits. If not ... well, I hate to say it, but if the community and/or admin corps doesn't see fit to deal with the problem then hopefully whoever doesn't place the necessary sanction on him but does give him a slap on the wrist will have him hounding them over how they didn't deserve a slap on the wrist for the next month. Either way, this thread should be closed pending the resolution of the other thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC) That said, I really wish someone would point out for the record in the other thread that the constant protests of "one-sided proposals" on the part of everyone but himself are kind of annoying when it's prety blatant that the disruption itself is one-sided, or at least highly lopsided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Addition- Moving to the correct thread. Now Twitchbook is trying to start a new thread to take the attention off of himself and more twisting of my words here Also: Twitchbook - I don't know why I didn't think of that for my username! Twitbookspacetube 01:12, 14 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)

There is a lot of other questionable conduct by this user. One of the first things he did was delete more than half of the well-written, properly sourced and non-controversial article Geodesics on an ellipsoid. He kept accusing the primary author of copyright violations, and eventually put a copyright violations tag on the article (making it unreadable). Just today he deleted more than half of another well-sourced, non-controversial article: Stanton Foundation. I opened a sock-puppet investigation of this user on January 28 because his choice of articles and editing style (for example, falsely claiming both original research and copyright violation) is very similar to banned users Crapscourge and Turnitinpro. Jrheller1 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And just to clarify, Jrheller1 is talking about User:Inlinetext. (To avoid confusion since Inlinetext accused ME of the WP:DUCK). My next concern is the complete destruction Inlinetext has done to the WP:BLP Swami Nithyananda article. Look at the 1 month history and you'll see he's done the same. Near complete deletion... and now addition of highly controversial opinions.

The 3 articles in question, Swami Nithyananda, Geodesics on an ellipsoid, and Stanton Foundation all share the common characteristic of being developed by massively conflicted editors used for self promotion. All these articles are badly sourced or poorly sourced to allow such POV pushing to be effected. My edits (invariably with clear edit summaries referencing the applicable policies) have focused attention on the problem areas and I am anxious to discuss these changes on the article talk pages with any interested editor willing to edit cooperatively to improve these articles and render them policy compliant. Swami Nithyananda which saw massive POV editing/sockpuppetry is now stable. Geodesics on an ellipsoid is also stable and there have been significant cooperative improvements on the article after extensive talk page discussion. Similarly Stanton Foundation was very recently edited by me to object to the massive addition of POV text on 15th March 2016 by a self declared WP:SPA, WP:COI, paid editor to this article, who seems to have left the project after media/news reports about the Stanton Foundation manipulating Wikipedia again. The SPA neither discussed these massive additions on the talkpage nor requested these to be inserted by a neutral editor (per brightline). As User 'Jrheller1' is not prepared to discuss (with me) the content and behaviorial concerns with the blatant COI editing on Stanton Foundation, I repeat them below for wider discussion.

• It is not enough to disclose one's affiliations.

• COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and it risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing

• In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.

• When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Needless to say the WMF Terms of Use require that community COI policies are to be invariably complied with in addition to ToU terms and conditions deprecating paid editing. Inlinetext (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@DocTox: As far as I can see you have made zero effort to engage in discussion on the article talk pages. This is a simple content dispute and it should go to the relevant talkpages. Inlinetext has followed the generally accepted edit procedures. As a side note, I really don't understand why people come here and do this type of stuff time and time again. Promotional editing is so easy to spot.--Adam in MO Talk 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the very first interaction Inlinetext had with another user (Friyman)? Inlinetext accused Friyman of wanting to become an admin for profit. I linked a diff at the sockpuppet investigation page (I'll add it here too [101]). I think DocTox was wise to not try to discuss the article with Inlinetext after their initial conversation (in which Inlinetext told DocTox to not edit the Swami Nithyananda article). Is the "generally accepted edit procedure" going around and deleting more than half of well-written, well-sourced, non-controversial articles? I don't think that is what "bold" really means. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already rebutted your deliberate misinterpretaion of my remark over (here) because that user carried out 12 edits in 1 minute and when I queried him about it he rep(lied) that I had blanked the page. These are not well sourced articles but poorly sourced. In the case of Stanton Foundation where 'Jrheller1' repeatedly reverted me, the non-WP:RS citation technique used by the SPA was for "X" (a prominent donor agency) to pay money to "Y", then "Y" would self publish "X has indeed paid Y", and then "X" would cite "Y" on Wikipedia as proof that "X has paid Y". In any event, 'Jrheller1' could clarifiy how many other accounts he has/had before his first edit. Inlinetext (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo:I tried discussing it with Inlinetext on his talk page. He effectively told me to do something else with my time and then deleted the conversation without further reply. In any case, since he will not discuss, I will simply revert the edits he's made right now, since this seems to be the solution you suggest. DocTox (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Conduct of Inlinetext is questionable, he just reverted a redirect to a WP:NOTNEWS article[102] and never appearing on the talk.[103] Despite the article has been redirected by multiple editors. I am sure he need to tone down a bit. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Reply : The "multiple editor" not unsurprisingly being the subject of multiple sock-puppet investigations naming you ? Inlinetext (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment : Also, the redirect was incorrect RfD link and wrongly applied. Inlinetext (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You must be WP:Gaming the system enough that you linked to a senseless SPI, makes me further enforce that you are simply disruptive with your regular edit warring and COI editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Athena1326 WP:NOTHERE

Athena1326 (already warned [104]) has repeatedly removed a cited criticism from the Noel Gallagher article ([105][106][107]). 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 ([108]), and chopped cited text from the Slade article mentioning their influence on Oasis ([109]). 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 ([110]). 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:1194:4FC:48AD:A32E (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"NOTHERE" is jargon that should be used sparingly.

There seems to be a content dispute here. Please discuss it at Talk:Noel_Gallagher#One_of_the_most_overrated.3F, which I have started up for you for this purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, although you say Athena1326 is "already warned", you did not warn this user that there was a discussion here. Neither did you warn the IP. (That's despite "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" in bold lettering on an orange background when you edit here.) I've warned them both. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 12 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)

• NeilN, I've presented the evidence, I've copied it across as you requested, and it's still not good enough for you. Jvm21 is, as you say, abundantly guilty of "personal attacks or continued disruption". I'm not bothered what follows on for continued un-WP:CIVIL behaviour after the level 4 warning. I've drawn it to your attention. You may act as toothless as you wish. Just don't be surprised if Jvm21 continues to pour scorn on your work and takes licence to continue with the uncivil, uncollegiate behaviour. Cabayi (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Cabayi, your report at AIV stated that Jvm21 had committed vandalism after a final warning, was a vandalism only account, and was WP:NOTHERE - all of which are incorrect. Bringing the report here allows for community input on what should be done or an admin to block for something other than vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Such as continued disruptive editing despite being blocked for continued disruptive editing. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:29, 12 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.[111][112][113]

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. [114]. —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)

As I have said, I am happy to apologise for any perceived condescension. This was not intended. David is a highly reputable mathematician and my purpose in drawing his attention to basic texts on the subject was because that is where Wikipedia turns first for its references - as an WP:EXPERT working in the stratosphere it is sometimes hard to remember that - and it was highly relevant to the content dispute. With hindsight I could evidently have phrased myself more carefully, and I apologise for giving the wrong impression. Further, I did not appreciate the depths of David's resentment and the tea episode was a light-hearted attempt between two experienced editors and geometers (I am not in David's league but I have a few papers to my credit) to calm things down. That the light-heartedness was again open to misinterpretation is also something I should apologise for.

If I have been "melodramatic" then I'd like to be shown where and how I have been more so than David has, so that I can avoid doing so in future. Also, once I know what I am being asked to apologise for, then I will be happy to do so there as well.

However I must temper this with the observation that throughout David has pursued a tactic of aggressive violations of advice and guidelines; ignoring BRD, failure to cite sources for contentious edits, reluctance discuss an issue before returning to aggressive editing, etc. etc. - the diffs I gave are the tip of the iceberg there - and that was what put me in the position in the first place, of trying to bring him round. It was I who opened the talk page discussion, not him, and I did that because he was already being aggressive, e.g. here and here.

I have always assumed good faith on David's part, while he has transparently failed to do so in return - check out all those POV-pushing allegations in the diffs.

Personal attacks in edit summaries are worse than those on talk pages because WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL gets difficult, so I should like some admin comment on the present violation of WP:ESDONTS, which is a policy and not a mere guideline. Look at the statements above "I didn't call him a liar ... I accused him of lying", with a link to a blog post in support. Now, I think you can all see that if I had responded to his edit comment with something like, "Everybody lies in maths articles" and linked to that same blog in support, David would have gone even more ballistic and you would all have accused me of dirt cheek. And we all know that such language games cut no ice on Wikipedia anyway, the meaning is abundantly clear. So I really do not see a level playing field here. I have done my best to keep the discussion civilised and David has rejected all attempts at that - or, to put it another way, his own attempts have been confined to arrogant slapdowns mixed with the odd policy violation. So yes, I am happy to apologise for any false impressions given, but I feel that at the very least, David owes a lot more than he has yet given, along with an assurance that he will behave himself from now on. Also, an Admin judgement on his policy violation - followed by his bizarre attempts to justify or talk round it here - needs proper consideration. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have twice said that you were willing to apologize, but you have yet to do so. By contrast, David Eppstein has already apologized in a clear and straightforward way. And, as in the content dispute, essentially nothing you've written is responsive to anyone else. This suggests to me pretty strongly where the problem lies. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people I know regard "I am happy to apologise" as an apology, and I have given that twice now. I hereby apologise to David for a third time for any perceived condescension in my posts, which I can assure him was not intended. I beg to differ over my contribution to the content dispute, but I don't know why you brought that to ANI, it doesn't belong here - can we deal with it in the article talk pages where it belongs and not throw mud here for the sake of it? It was not me who violated policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people perceive "I would be happy to apologize" and the insertion of words like "... perceived ..." as blame-shifting and as avoidance of taking responsibility for one's behavior. Frankly, your behavior here and on the articles reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing. As for your request for a response from an admin concerning WP:ESDONTS, let me make it clear that in my opinion, as an admin, David Eppstein's choice of words was inappropriate, especially since, as you correctly point out, they occur in an edit summary. But he has apologized, and so have you. I think that ought to be the end of it. Paul August ☎ 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say, "OK if that's where folks want to leave it, I am willing to give it a try". But now Joel_B._Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not only making snarky comments here (as JBL) but elsewhere is accusing me of childishness and posting cryptic comment on David's talk page. With both him and David at it I feel badly intimidated and am unwilling to get back into the content discussion. David has apologised only for his edit comments, not for the rest of it, and we have seen from his "liar" vs "lying" wriggling that he plays with words and meanings. Is there anything that can be done to extract undertakings from these two to treat me with respect and assume my good faith from here on in? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talking about childishness in edit summaries (as in that diff) could easily be seen by some as condescending, so that might be something to apologise for, too. Hopefully then this thread can finally be closed.

Regarding assuming good faith, I think it's best to assume good faith on the matter of assuming good faith, rather than requiring proof that someone is going to assume good faith. Κσυπ Cyp   08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a difference between an untried editor and one who has visibly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but I take your point. I am content that the behavioural issues have now been acknowledged at Admin level and the editors concerned know the score. I'm OK for this to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Oops, no, he's started up again. His claims about me here are quite false and couched in deliberately disparaging tones. So much for that apology. Can somebody please stop this guy from disrupting our discussions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite ANI readers to follow Steelpillow's new link and judge for themselves whether my contribution there is in any way not content-based, uncivil, or disruptive. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil or disruptive in what David Eppstein has posted there. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess his bizarre and negative misreading of my views must be the root of his problems rather than a symptom of them. It's just proving hard to get past. But that is a content issue. OK, let's can this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the long comment you linked to about your views. The only sentence that even mentions you (the part about "insistance on the sentence "all polyhedra have duals") is purely about your actions, not your views. You have repeatedly reverted any changes to this sentence, at the two articles in question [115] [116]. Ipso facto, you have insisted on keeping this sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a content issue. I rest my case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 14 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."[117] 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.[118] 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.[119][120] 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.[121] 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)

The URL had been specified incorrectly with "http://http://". I've checked the page, and the words "father" and "democracy" do not appear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 12 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)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Qwertyufg (talk · contribs) indeffed, same MO. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted my close, because of the new one. Is there any way to set an edit filter to catch these? Or is NPP (does NPP look at userpages?) or Recent Changes going to be enough? Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm less than knowledgeable about edit filters, but a filter that catches replication of userpages might be interesting... GAB^gab 04:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

NPP does not normally patrol user pages, despite the fact that there is, for some reason, a running log of unreviewed pages in user space. TimothyJosephWood 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, when you say "log", do you mean they are actually logged somewhere, and if so, can you post the link? Or by "a running log" do you simply mean "an amount of" or "a number of"? Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They're here, possibly other places as well. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Argument on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut

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

---

Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
StephenTS42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nod12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a dispute on the talk page, that me and a another user are being randomly accused of being sockpuppets. Editor is also disputing about his content being removed, but is not edit warring about it. —JJBers 06:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

User:StephenTS42, do you actually believe what you're saying? If not, stop banging on about them and consider apologizing, because your allegations waste people's time. If on the other hand you are serious, then get to work. (For starters, read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User has now redirected their account to a unregistered account listed above. —JJBers 11:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by Editors Jytdog and Ymblanter on Gender Disphoria article

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

---

Two editors, Jytdog and Ymblanter, have just engaged in disruptive edits on the Gender Dysphoria article. I had made a series of constructive edits, which nevertheless may not have been desired by people who feel they WP:OWN the article. Both Jytdog and Ymblanter have attempted to avoid the WP:BRD process: Rather than discuss their reverts, they have merely Reverted and then refused and failed to discuss. Worse, editor Ymblanter rudely and improperly put a semi-protect on the article, including a false claim of "disruptive editing" when no such disruptive editing had occurred. Only editing which these editors may not have liked occurred, but the proper response to that would have been to engage in the WP:BRD process. Instead, they attempted to shut off the WP:BRD process by blocking edits from an editor, myself, who did not agree with their apparent desires as to the content of the article. Obstructing an editor merely because his edits are not desired by one or some (rather than those edits genuinely being "disruptive") is a clear violation of the principles of WP. Evidently, those two editors, rather than actually defend their positions, desired to conceal the dispute from the record. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP hopper apparently tries to create a false impression that I ever edited the article, whereas it is easy to check that I only added the protection template. They also forget to mention that their proposal at the talk page was rejected by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If anything, Ymblanter's now-admitted fact that he never edited the article (at least not in the last 500 edits I just checked, back to August 2014), makes things far worse for him: Ymblanter has no prior interest in the article, and has not paid any attention to the content of the article. He is clearly being used as a "hired gun", to retaliate against me, and to obstruct my edits. Clearly, he was called to this dispute, probably by Jytdog, and instead of actually investigating the nature of the problem before acting, his first and only tactic was to obstruct the person that he was asked to obstruct, presumably asked to do so by Jytdog. Wikibullying. Also, Ymblanter falsely claims " They also forget to mention that their proposal at the talk page was rejected by the community." Nothing was "rejected by the community". Yet another "hired gun" showed up to obstruct things; apparently this is a very common WP tactic. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on the OP to provide diffs to prove what they are saying is so. El_C 09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are ASSUMING that I know how to do that. I don't. WP USED TO be called "the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Years ago, anyway. But in reality, I now see that it has been made so complicated that ordinary people can't do that any longer. Worse, it appears that you are chiding me simply for failing to do something I dont' know how to do, and implying ("the burden is") that if an editor doesn't know how to do a specific task, their positions are automatically ignored. That's rude. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'm assuming is that you'd take the time to read that link and learn how to. The onus is on you to prove your case, which so far you failed to do, sorry. El_C 10:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like your editing actually put the article into conflict with the sources, which is a big no no. Jytdog's reverts were good, and Ymblanter's protection was good. The article is not going to be changed because you dislike the language used by the sources. If you want to make your changes, find better sources, and explain why they're better. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What it "looks like" to you is wrong. You do not identify where the "conflict" is, for starters. Further, I was obstructed from continuing to edit (including correcting and adding sources) by the very people I'm complaining about here. And whether or not you believe "Jytdog's edits were good", nevertheless he failed to engage in the full WP:BRD process that is required. You falsely imply that he may simply revert and then ignore the issue, as he did. Did he call you here for backup, like he called Ymblanter? Figures. Yet more Wikibullying? Don't demand that people find/add sources, AFTER they are obstructed from adding them by means of a partial protection template. That is not merely rude, but obnoxious as well. The fact that Ymblanter partial-protected the article, even before giving me and others the opportunity to find and add sources, clearly shows the nature of the abuse. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat(s)

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

---

81.84.178.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) — Last passage(s) of here, here, and here. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

*Reloads* ...Pull! Ian.thomson (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Is this the wrong forum?

I am not sure but my computer may have been hijacked (I might have sorted it out but am not sure), so can admins keep an eye on my account just in case. You will able to tell if it's not me, they can spell.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, what the hell? this was started with "new section" and yet appears to be being places in another threads area, why?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous section was missing a {{abot}}, so it got confused. Κσυπ Cyp   13:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL, well at least it was nothing to do with my paranoia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing the right thing

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

---

In Sondra Currie's talk page, a user with IP address wrote something about Antony Crowther being inspired by Sondra Currie and then goes on about winning a piano competition at the age of 11. I saw this as irrelevant and removed the edit from the talk page. He undid this so I removed it again with mentions about WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM, but he undid it again. So I replied with links on how to use Wikipedia with the intention of removing his edit later (in a week?). I wonder if I should pursue on getting this talk page clean or just let it go. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of times it's more effective to collapse off topic comments rather than outright removing them. It allows you to leave a semi-permanent explanation as to why the comments are inappropriate, and do it in a place that isn't an edit summary. Gotta keep in mind that most newbies probably don't understand how to use page history or even what an edit summary is. It's likely they just get a ping that their edit was reverted, and intuitively respond by themselves reverting.

But overall, as long as the comments aren't violations of things like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, which absolutely must be removed for legal reasons, there's no real harm in letting an off-topic but not obviously bad faith comment hang around. Like most newbies probably don't understand what an edit summary is, most readers probably never or rarely ever visit a talk page. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I hav taken the liberty, as an uninvolved editor, of collapsing the relevant discussion as off-topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good deal. We can probably close this then, and for future reference Lyverbe, for questions that don't require the use of administrator tools, but instead are mainly requests for input from experienced editors, you may want to keep Wikipedia:Help desk in mind. It's a pretty active community and there are always folks around willing to help. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Another malformed Trump move request

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

---

Regardless of any decision that maybe made about a moratorium on moves (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moratorium_on_requested_moves_of_Trump.3F above), there is now yet another malformed move request at Talk:Trump#Requested_mvoe_12_February_2017. [122].

It has been started at by new editor User:Chris H of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who has already been warned about their previous edit-warring on the same issue by two admins and by other editors (see their talk), but seems to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues, and has a previous block for socking. With only 66 edits in all, his may be a NOTHERE person

I think that this needs nipping in the bud. Please can someone take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed the RM. Mulling over a topic ban or indefinite block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

One or the other would be good. Chris's latest reply on their talk indicates that there's not much hearing there, so a topic ban may not work. But maybe another round of WP:ROPE.

BTW, NeilN don't forget to remove the RM template from Talk:Trump. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think I removed the template in my subsequent edit. No one alerted the editor about discretionary sanctions so I can't properly levy a topic ban. Editor is indeffed with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN, sorry I missed your next edit. Template is indeed gone.

Indeffed is fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

EnoughsEnough ripping out Daily Mail sources

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

---

I appreciate that the Daily Mail no longer counts as a reliable source but EnoughsEnough is charging through the encyclopedia ripping out Daily Mail citations and leaving content unsourced. Several editors have raised this issue with him at User talk:EnoughsEnough but he his persisting with this course of action. Now, I am not arguing against the ultimate goal of removing Daily Mail sources but I do not believe that leaving content unsourced improves the situation. The sources need to be replaced in an orderly fashion. A good first step would be to geta bot to tag all uses of it between ref tags, but second of all this behavior needs to be nipped in the bud because it's not helping. EnoughsEnough has been asked svereal times to stop but it has had no effect on histheir conduct so can someone with a bit more authority get him to stop please. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The content was unsourced beforehand. That's the problem here.

Mostly I've tagged these as {{cn}} if there wasn't another source already. I didn't do that for the Agutter article (I agree, maybe I ought to) as I considered the specific claims there fairly uncontroversial and already covered by the other sources present. EnoughsEnough (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The information was not unsourced. It was sourced and now the status of the source has changed. The problem here is not that the content is unsourced but that the source needs to be replaced. Removing a source and tagging content as uncited is not the same as tagging the source as unreliable, that is why we have {{Rs}} i.e. so problematic sources can be replaced in an orderly fashion. Leaving content is unsourced is worse than leaving it sourced to teh Daily Mail so your actions are not helping. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Conveniently the editor only replied when I started rollbacking, Anyway although consensus is to not use the dailymail there's nothing that says they have to be removed, I have no problems with them removing the DM as long as they actually replace it which they haven't been - They've just been removing it and that's it, I don't really wanna support blocking however something should be done. –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Betty Logan's comments above. I just have the feeling that if the Daily Mail was a left-wing publication - we would not be having this discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Pssh tosh, David J. Johnson, stop looking for left-wing boogeymen under the bed, because they're all out in the shed drinking wodka.

EnoughsEnough: Leave in the material and either replace the source with a better one, or mark it with {{bettersource}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is going to be one of many issues that are going to come up regarding editors taking the RSN choice as a licence to adopt a (and i'll avoid Godwin's Law here) Cromwellian attitude toward DM sources and just charge in to remove it and not consider the damage that is being done by removing sources from articles where they have been established and accepted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Ken, a cautionary tale. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Betty Logan's comments. And it's rather worrying that EnoughsEnough seems unwilling to distinguish between the concepts of unsourced and unreliably-sourced.
It would be far more useful to tag the articles as having an unreliable source, and so that editors who want to do the research of finding alternative sources can identify the articles which need this attention. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also agree with Betty Logan. Tagging these sources as being potentially unreliable is the correct thing to do if they are not being immediately replaced with a reliable source. The deletions of the sources are disruptive, and the fact that the account was created mere hours after the Daily Mail RFC closed [123] and is an SPA for removing Daily Mail refs suggests that another editor is behind the account and knew that the wholesale removals would be controversial. Meters (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

CNN

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

---

Can someone who has the patience of a saint please explain WP:POV and WP:UNDUE and WP:RS et cetera over at CNN controversies? Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I am putting discretionary sanctions on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added WP:1RR page and edit notices. Hopefully that will throw some cold water on the fire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: You might need to fix the edit notice, its not rendering the topic area correctly. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Herblouise945 copyvio images

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

---

Herblouise945 (talk · contribs) has been uploading lots of low quality images of politicians lately. While a laudable goal, upon further investigation, most if not all of them appear to be screenshots from YouTube videos (see my CSD tagging of 12 of them thus far), despite the claims he makes as to source. Could an admin please look into this and take appropriate action? Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I was able to locate sources online for almost all of the images, they were screen shots from YouTube videos. I have warned Herblouise945 not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Someone might want to get on this quick - BLP issue

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

---

Hard to bring this up in any other way but these edits [124] [125] need to get oversighted and the user needs to be blocked or at least severely warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also take a look at the user's talk page and somewhat older edits like these [126].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for this catch, but please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight next time to report this instead of using ANI, as reporting it here can widely publicize sensitive information. The oversight team is quick to respond, and if it really needs to be temporarily revdeleted before oversight is possible, use IRC to flag an admin. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't know about that link (more precisely forgot what it was). Feel free to remove this thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit clash: I've deleted the two edits linked to in the first paragraph above. (Hmm, for one of the pair, I think that I sleepily cited a reason that only oversighters are supposed to cite. If so, sorry about that.) I've given the editor a little break from editing hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, should one respond sceptically to the editor's claim that this graphic is his "Own work"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've suppressed everything that can be oversighted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vandal

I have been spotting and reverting this vandal for years, but recently vandalism has intensified so much that I finally have to report here.

All the IPs this vandal has used can be seen here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.254.158.227.

This vandal is from the Greater Toronto Area, apparently a Chinese speaker, but goes around Wikipedia changing "centre" to "center", "colour" to "color" and DMY dates to MDY dates wherever the US spelling/style would be inappropriate. Finding many articles protected, this vandal has moved onto articles like Pinctada maxima to change between "mollusk" and "mollusc".

This user has never registered for an account (to my knowledge), but recently has become daily in finding either new IP or new articles to vandalize, so much so that my contributions are now more than 50% reverting this vandal.

A long-term range block of Rogers Hi-Speed Internet IPs in the Toronto area (now apparently in the 2607:FEA8 range) seems appropriate to encourage this vandal to find a new hobby. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an edit filter would be a better defence against this? ϢereSpielChequers 07:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the disruption is still ongoing while we discuss this, I've performed a 1 week range block on the latest range, 2607:fea8:235f:ff8f::/64. Is there an edit filter that could easily catch this? You'd have to check for every variation in spelling, wouldn't you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User replacing images with his own lower-quality ones

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

User:Hemant banswal is an amateur photographer keen on introducing his own work into articles. A few are useful angles on local architecture which Wikipedia was lacking, but a lot of his edits are adding redundant photos that don't particularly illustrate anything and replacing useful and/or high-quality images with unclear, lower-resolution ones from his own camera. User:Pocketthis mentioned "a number of us chasing this guy" for this behaviour back in January; after I took the time to offer Hemant some talk page advice, and to patiently deal out warnings up to level-4 when reverting his edits, he's still replacing photos with his own less-illustrative ones and has not attempted to discuss these edits with anyone. Not sure where else to go from here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my view that an editor who has taken or has found a photo which could improve a article should be bold and just do it (recognizing that a consensus of editors might conclude the article has too many or that this one isn't suitable. However, when it comes to replacing one photo with another one, absent situations where it is clear that the replacement is materially better, the editor should open a discussion on the talk page, ideally to get support, but at a minimum to identify lack of opposition, before replacing the photo.

I don't pretend to have invented this process, it is one I've seen used by editors I respect, but AFAIK, it isn't codified as a guideline {or maybe it has and I just haven't seen it). If it is a sensible rule, we might codify it as a guideline, then we would have a better ability to deal with situations such as thins, and could revert per a guideline, rather than having to create an ANI incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• What McGeddon failed to mention here is that this user, who claims to speak English on his user page, has NEVER replied to one of us. His talk page looks like a Rand McNally map of problems. Many posts of help offered, much advice offered by many. Replies from the user in question: ZERO. He is either suffering from mental issues, or just doesn't give a damn, and he just continues to run from article to article exchanging high res quality photos with amateur low res cell phone photos with no composition. He is trouble and needs a BOOT. Do what you will, I am personally tired of chasing him around. Respectfully, Pocketthis (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. @Pocketthis: (hello there, I remember your great pictures!). I understand your frustration, but we have seen many cases of users who simply aren't aware they have a talkpage, or what it's for. On the assumption that that's what's the problem here, I have blocked the user for two weeks, simply to get their attention. They have certainly been warned enough, and reached-out-to enough. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

• Oh dear, McGeddon and Pocketthis, I forgot to actually place the block (being used to Twinkle doing it for me), and the user immediately came to my page, to give me a pie and have a chat. Some irony there. I told him to get back to his own page — I gave him a link to it and everything — and chat to the people who have taken so much trouble to reach out to him. Seriously. Now he's blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
• Lol...I got a good laugh at your post. It fixed a simply horrid day...:-) How did he end up on your page?? He finally replied when he was blocked?? I don't get it, but if this is heading toward some resolution with the problem: Bravo. Oh...thanks for the photography compliment, it certainly caught me off guard, as I don't remember speaking with you previously. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• WAIT!! of course! You were the lovely lady that came to my talk page regarding the UFO incident. I still have that on my page in fact. I kept it because it was such a nice gesture for you to make by coming to my page and discussing the images we see in the clouds. Nice to see you again..really.  :-) - Pocketthis (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I merely told him he had been blocked, I forgot to actually block him. (Twinkle does both together.) So he had no problem coming to my page. Which conveniently made me realize I hadn't blocked him... or I might never have noticed. I certainly remember your cloud pictures, Pocketthis. This sky is absolutely insane. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

Looking for broader community input

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
There has been a recent discussion on my talk page which I would appreciate if you could go take a look at (User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Second eye..) for the full picture. But in summary, we have User:MilenaGlebova1989 who has created 154 short articles on individual Yoga positions (or 'asanas'). Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb are doubtful they are notable, are poorly sourced- mostly WP:PRIMARY- and ought to be redirected to our List of asanas article. There being so many qualifies them, I suggest, for this single, centralised discussion to take place.
So in the interest of wider discussion, in appreciation of the benefits that 'the intervention of administrators and experienced editors' can bring (and hoping someone will know of a means of mass-redirecting if that is indeed the conclusion), here we are. No particular administrative action is requested- except, again, if there are tools available to redirect en masse- although it is probably worth noting that if this had been replied to, something could have been worked out earlier and we may not have to be here now. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect - As I noted on Fortuna's talk page, if this were a single article, I would have redirected to the List of asanas article on the basis that independent notability had not been properly established, but given that we're talking about 154 or so cookie-cutter stubs, it seems a massive undertaking to perform without discussion--and frankly, without help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect--As the iniator of the discussion, I find zero-notability in these standgalone stubs and propose an en-masse redirect to List of asanas. Winged Blades ^Godric 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: These articles contain images with promotional watermarks[127] that were originally published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). If I understand correctly we cannot (yet) re-license them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Creative commons says: "The 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike allows contributions to be licensed under under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses as compatible. However, CC will develop a compatibility process shortly following launch of the 4.0 licenses."[128] Also see:[129]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect, absolutely. Having spot checked a dozen of the articles I didn't find a single one that did more than mention the name of the pose, as well as some WP:NOTHOWTO violating advice and a list of titles (with amazon.com links for refs) of books that describe it - no indication of notability, and the articles look like spam magnets for various publications that mention them. It may even be the case that they were created in order to name-drop the author of the book and website that the images were taken from, given that all the images appear to have the same source - the same user has created articles about both the author and the book, in addition to all the asanas. (If so, we should be grateful that there are only 154 articles, given that the book apparently lists more than 2000 of them...) --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good note about the spam potential, Bonadea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My topic was closed by an abusive editor with privileges

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

---

The topic can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#.22Reliable_Sources.22_are_given_too_much_power_through_Wikipedia_Policy

Someone locked my topic simply because they disagree with what I'm saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest it again. You need to drop the stick now. You were told by a number of editors in that section your linked to do so. Not just one, but multiple editors. No one was "abusive" or abused their privileges. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think someone who participated in the discussion should close a discussion. You can just stop replying if you don't want to continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the IP has edit-warred to retain a section with a title that constitutes a personal attack and has completely failed to notify the editor they are attacking, may I please request a swift boomerang so we can get past this? Sir Joseph, I think the editing history of this page and the actual nature of the discussion there shows that simply no longer responding is not going to settle this. Some discussions need to be shut down, and there is no policy stating that involved editors cannot do so when it obviously needs to be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I begin to lose sympathy when someone starts a fruitless conversation that is closed, then starts a fruitless conversation about the closure of their fruitless conversation which is closed, and then comes to ANI to make a fruitless complaint about... well... you get the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation was originally moved, not closed. But you tried... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny... It sure looks closed to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was moved to the proper section... There is a fundamental difference 104.148.178.88 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was closed with the message that you are complaining in the wrong place. The fact that you then started complaining in the right place is immaterial to that fact. The fact that you feel the need to debate every detail is, actually, material to my request to the admins above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do recommend that the IP watch their language here and the personal attacks, but I will also say that I feel the discussion was closed down prematurely by someone involved. The situation about WP and our RSes in today's state of journalism is a serious issues that needs to be discussed, and shutting down these discussions seems a way to avoid that, particularly when more editors beyond the IP got involved. (I note I did participate so it would absolutely be wrong of me to re-open it). --MASEM (t) 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a collegiate discussion going on between me and North8000, which was the only redeemable part of that thread, and I for one am more than happy to pick up in a new thread (or leave it be entirely, as the case may be) without the argumentativeness of the IP editor interfering with that discussion. I wholeheartedly endorse the close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It looks to me like the IP has a couple of legitimate beefs here. Not that @Jytdog: was abusing, but that as a participant he shouldn't be closing the conversation. And that calling infowars a "fake news" site in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article is not quite right, even per the cited sources. The sources do list infowars in a table of 'fake news' (their scare quotes) sites to avoid "if you want the facts", but they also characterize it more finely than that, as "Includes a mix of conspiracy theories and real news" on the Daily Dot, and "Propaganda" on USNews. These are a little different from what most sources usually mean by "fake news", and it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The closure wasn't due to the IP's contention that Infowars is not fake news (I agree with the IP on that point, actually), but due to the fact that the IP was attempting to undermine the value of using reliable sources for our content. That's an argument that is not going to get anywhere. It's not only nonsensical to suggest that our policy wrt this is a problem, it's mind-bogglingly ridiculous to imply that there's any other way of sourcing our content. I mean, seriously. The IP's argument was based in a form of hard solipsism and an extreme form of philosophical skepticism. Their argument boils down to (though I doubt it was thought through to this level) the bald-faced assertion that we can never know the truth about anything. Frankly, it was nothing but a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added one comment at the very end of the thread, so I guess I would qualify as "involved" myself, but, honestly, based on what I had read in the thread, I might have closed it myself. There is a question whether the person involved should have, Jytdog, but I think that there is far less question as to appropriateness of closing the thread. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My argument is based around the fact that there is legitimately biased information on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with philosophical skepticism. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And your argument seems to be one that you are completely unwilling to drop the stick about. Under such circumstances, I believe that should further rather pointless repetition of arguments continue, there might be not only grounds for closing this thread here, but perhaps at least consideration of sanctions at the IP editor apparently engaged in tendentious editing as per WP:TE. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will gladly drop the stick when MjolnirPants stops misrepresenting what I've said. Dropping the stick works both ways... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to comprehend the implications of your own claims doesn't in any way reflect on the way I've characterized them. If I've been mischaracterizing them, one would expect you to have corrected me, but instead, you just keep saying that I'm mischaracterizing your arguments while you repeat them ad nauseum in the face of multiple editors explaining just how incredibly illogical they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(e-c) Actually, I do not believe that it is necessarily your call and your call alone regarding when others should drop the stick, and I get the impression from this thread and that earlier thread that you have been advised regarding that often enough that there might be grounds for sanctions should they continue. Also, you seem to confusing your basis for starting this later thread, which was criticism of Jytdog for closing the earlier thread, with your argument with MjolnirPants, which is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reread my posts on this topic. I never mentioned MjolnirPants until he mentioned me first. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that doesn't prove just how poorly you're reading/comprehending what's being said to you, I don't know what does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I really don't care enough to argue with you lol 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maury Povich says the lie detector test are in and... That was a lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I care about Wikipedia, but I've realized that this argument specifically between us will never go anywhere and it's better to just stop wasting both of our time. I appreciate the debate. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest boomerang - Editor clearly is refusing to get the hint. Wikipedia policy is very, very, very clear about what qualifies as reliable sourcing. This argument is being prolonged unnecessarily, for no other reason than to just argue.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I suggested a boomerang in my first comment, in case this is not clear due to the crooked wall of text which followed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much good a boomerang would do in this situation considering the history of the IP here includes only 2 edits to Fascism, a few to pizzagate, the now closed discussion at WT:RS, and this thread. Having said that, no objections to one, or to someone closing this thread as a fairly clear instance of tendentious editing. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Boomerang...or just close. Doesn't really make a difference to me. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang, re-open the discussion - I have read all of the thread linked in the OP, but not any precursors. A key statement was made by the OP: "You're right in the sense that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Wikipedia's editing policy." That being the case, the OP cannot know whether they are opposing the policy or the editors who do not apply it correctly, and the ways to deal with the two are completely different. I suggest to the OP that they should gain more policy knowledge and experience before taking on these weighty issues. But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack, so they should be allowed to continue as long as anyone cares to debate with them. They cannot be disruptive of a discussion that they themselves started, and server resources are not in such short supply that we need to shut down non-disruptive debate that some (or even most) consider pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack The first two conditions are arguable, and the last clearly false. Have you looked at the title of this thread? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

An overstatement no doubt made in frustration, which the OP might wish to correct. In my experience such things (and far worse) are routinely forgiven when the circumstances are considered. If the discussion shouldn't have been shut down, we forgive the somewhat emotional response to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As is clear from a reading of the discussion, the IP's contention is that our policy on reliable sources amounts to an endorsement of factually incorrect information because we like the sources. The editor also refuses to read/understand/accept any response which points out the failings of this, repeatedly asking me and others to justify WP being wrong about things which he asserts WP is wrong about, and asking us to defend using information we know is inaccurate. I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. The editor is either unwilling or incapable of understanding the responses they have gotten, or the epistemological connotations or philosophical basis of their own arguments. I'm more than happy to help an editor understand why WP works the way it does, but when I explain it clearly and their response is to accuse me (and WP in general) of intentionally endorsing false claims, there's nothing to do but stop them from causing further drama through whatever means necessary.

To that end, the IP editor seems to have stopped for now. So now, we're left discussing all the myriad connotations of their arguments in a way that wouldn't have been a problem if we'd just closed the thread and left it at that without dragging it out at ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. -- Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it. If all editors agree with you, the OP will be left to debate with themselves and the thread will be archived for lack of activity. If not, the majority has no right to tell the minority what they are allowed to discuss. In my opinion a thread improperly closed is exactly what ANI is for; if you can suggest a better venue or approach, I'm all ears.
If the OP repeatedly edits against clear consensus, etc, etc, that's an entirely different matter. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing an editor's right to speak non-disruptively. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to Mandruss' complaint, I believe this is a topic that would potentially led a disruptive change for the better at Wikipedia if discussion were allowed to continue, but mayn editors see the initial "disruptive" nature as troubling and immediately want to shut the door on it (for a myriad of possible reasons). That's human nature to shut down anything that requires massive change, but we can't be so quick to close down the discussion, even when the IP is angry or perhaps canvassing for answers once others have joined in. Certainly there are perennial proposals that have been discussed so many times that we know there's no route for adaption, so shutting down arguments in that case make sense. But this example certainly does not fall into any PEREN case. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If either of you can come up with a policy proposal in which we drop our reliance on reliable sources entirely (which is the IP's contention) and replace it with ... something... which even has the potential to make WP more accurate, I'm all ears (seriously: good luck with that lol). If either of you want to discuss the particulars of our policy, as North8000 and I were doing briefly, again; I'm all ears. But don't sit here and try to act like I'm advocating shutting down a discussion because I disagreed with the OP. That's just some bullshit. Oh and the reason I keep responding? I enjoy it. That doesn't make it productive. And don't try to blame the continuation on me, either, because I see both of you continuing the discussion you're disparaging me for continuing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I take no position on the content policy issues, which are completely separate from the question of whether that thread should have been shut down, the legitimacy of this ANI complaint, and any boomerang proposals. Also, you seem to conflate the closed discussion with this one, and again they are completely separate issues. Finally, no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here, no one is "act[ing] like [you're] advocating shutting down a discussion because [you] disagreed with the OP". I can only suggest that you re-read what we have said, more calmly and less defensively. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here Please explain to me the purpose and implications of "Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it" if not to imply without stating outright that the disruption is at least partially my fault (which is a disparaging remark). It's okay to disparage me, by the way. This forum is for the purpose of disparaging others in a way that turns out to benefit WP, and if you think my involvement is detrimental, you should disparage me for it. But don't deny that you're doing that.

Also, I'm not upset in the slightest, I'm enjoying this quite a bit, as I just pointed out. But the fact you seem to be missing is that the reason the thread was shut down was due to the content. The propriety of any closing hinges upon the content of the closed thread. So you can't tell me that the close was improper without implying (perhaps not intentionally, but still) that the content was legitimate. Now, I admitted above that there was some legitimate content, however little, in the closed thread, but I also pointed out that this legitimate content could easily be forked off into a new thread. Which is what should have happened. Instead, the IP created a thread here which attacks another editor in the title, without notifying that editor, then edit-warred with me and an admin to keep this thread here. At which point a few editors have joined in to prevent the swift closure of this thread.

Now, I'm enjoying this, as I've said before. I'm happy to keep going. But I'll also be the first to admit that nothing helpful is going to come of this. If you would like to come with me over to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and have a nice discussion about the weaker points of our policy as it currently exists, I'm all for it. I think you might be surprised to learn that I, too have a few problems have with the way policy is currently worded (and thus, implemented) that I would love to see hashed out. Or we can continue going round in circles here, taking up enormous amounts of space at ANI (Note: nobody's worried about server space, but huge walls of text make this page very difficult for us squishy humans to navigate effectively) and keeping me entertained. I'm okay with the latter, but again: it's just not productive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. I'm not going to continue this with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. Umm, thank you for rephrasing what I said, but I don't think you really grasped my meaning, as you felt the need to dictate it back to me as if I were unaware of it. I assure you that I was aware of the meaning at the time I said it, and still am. You might notice I didn't say anything about whether you should speak your mind, only that the implications of what you were saying were wrong. The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. I might once again point out that there's no policy which states that closures must be made by uninvolved parties, and WP:CLOSE focuses on the closures of deletion discussions. With informal discussions like the one in question, there are no community-established guidelines governing closures. There have been attempts to get such a policy put in place, but they could not gain consensus due to the community's awareness of situations like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. - It was, which is my entire point and position. Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, when there is no disruption occurring. Again, if you don't see a point to a discussion, walk away from it. Disagree if you like. Better yet, show me a policy or guideline that says I'm wrong. Barring that, we have now achieved circularity, which is when I get off. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, WP:TPG was established by consensus so... You're wrong. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the part of TPG that says someone can shut down a non-disruptive discussion because they feel it's a pointless waste of other editors' time. I'm fairly certain it does not exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, if someone wants to revert the closure, then revert the closure, especially if they think they can contribute something that will make it more than the daily "why don't you give equal treatment to social media and tabloids as you do the lame-stream-media" dead-end conversation. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm sure @Jytdog: isn't one to go to hell and back over something so petty. If we're going to revert a closure for purely bureaucratic reasons to reach a foregone conclusions through a differing but equal route, then leave it alone, and stop wasting everyone's time. Either way, it's not something that requires ten pages of ANI debate. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP making the complaint seems to have not said anything in the last 15 posts, counting this one, to this thread. Maybe we could just all take a break until and unless he comes back? John Carter (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey "The Process Must Be Exactly Followed" Mandruss: I was not notified of this thread. Also, if you really believe that either a) the discussion at WT:RS has a good chance of producing change to RS (the main purpose of WT:RS) or b) the IP was asking authentic questions and was actually listening to the answers (the other purpose) -- then by all means revert me. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  @Jytdog: Unresponsive to my argument, sidesteps the issue as I see it. I'm going to decline your invitation to incite an edit war over that close. You should address my argument or remove the close yourself. If you have no p&g basis for it, withdraw it; that's a core Wikipedia principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree the process should be followed, the thread was started by the IP and Mandruss came in about three hours later. I don't see he necessarily deserves blame here - I probably deserve more, having commented before he did. I guess none of us bothered to look to see if you were notified, @Jytdog:, and I guess for that you deserve apologies from all of us. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion is whether the conversation should be reopened. If you think it should, then do it. You've been invited twice. If not, then there's nothing else to discuss it seems. TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, notifying editors that their behavior is under discussion is mandatory and your failure to ensure that was done, here in this discussion in which you have so avidly participated, just cuts the ground out from under your stickler arguments. Listen, I followed IAR. The IP wasn't listening and it became clear that the thread was just disruption. If i had even a shred of belief, based on what they wrote there and at Talk:Pizzagate, that the thread wasn't just IDHT battering to get the source treated with more respect in WP, I wouldn't have closed it. Again, if you really believe that the discussion there was authentic, then please revert me (my saying that means i won't re-revert). Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done [130] - For the third or fourth time, there was no disruption because there was nothing to disrupt. As for notification, that was the OP's responsibility and they were wrong to omit that. If you wish to seek a sanction for that failure, go right ahead, but that's independent from the close question. It's more than a little ridiculous to say that every editor who participates in an ANI complaint is required to go verify that the defendant was notified. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, have fun I guess? Everyone knows that conversation is going nowhere. Just another in the endless series of complaints that Wikipedia listens to reliable sources instead of random editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

186.137.92.237

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

---

The IP is keeping on reverting at Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution without participating the TP discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Onision and disruptive edits

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

---

The article's subject has apparently posted a video requesting that fans "modify" Wikipedia. At least five usernames have been registered since that include "Onision" in the name, and several other recent registrations have been used to disrupt both the article and the talk page—the latter ongoing. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Excirial semied for a week and I added a month of PC to minimize any disruption when the semi comes off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The TP seems to attract a fair number of fans, though. Some got warned, one got blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I suggest new accounts adding nonsensical edit-requests suffer the same fate. Kleuske (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I upped the semi to a month now to match the PC protection - I wasn't aware of the situation before but i suspect we might have a flood of PC edits to review otherwise. I also protected the talk page for a week since the meatpuppets were now flooding over there with "edit requests". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Eddaido and WP:OWNership

This has to be one of the stranger cases of WP:OWN I've come across. I made a change to the date formatting (among some other edits) on George Wylde. Wylde died on 15 January 1650. As was the convention in England at the time, the death was recorded in at least one of the older sources used in the article as occurring on 15 January 1649/1650 (see Lady Day and Old Style and New Style dates#Start of the year in the historical records of Britain and its colonies and possessions for why). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers instructs that "In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January." Of the sources used in this article Williams simply uses "15 Jan. 1650" and [http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/wylde-george-1594-1650 Wylde's History of Parliament entry likewise has " d. 15 Jan. 1650." It's long-standing wikipedia practice as stated to use January as the start of the year, hence Samuel Pepys was born on 23 February 1633, not 23 February 1632/1633, Charles I of England was beheaded on 30 January 1649, not on 30 January 1648/1649 and the First Battle of Middlewich took place on 13 March 1643 and not 13 March 1642/1643. So far so simple. Eddaido (talk · contribs) promptly reverted with Why change the date?. Assuming that the user was not aware of the OS/NS date conventions and the manual of style's guidance on same, I pointed it out on the talk page and made another edit, this time inserting a note that explained the differences, similar to that which can be seen on featured articles like Charles I of England. Eddaido reverted it saying Please just leave it alone. This is the convention. His interaction on the talkpage has gone down to saying please just leave the article alone. and to my request that he engage or I will file a report, he simply says Fightin' words?. At the very least he has frozen out a number of clearly useful edits such as adding categories and some spelling corrections with his blanket reversion. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a WP:content dispute. As both parties are engaged in the discussion even if not perfectly, the solution when there are only 2 if you and you can't come to an agreement is some form of WP:dispute resolution which does not include ANI. If there is existing site wide consensus on this it should be trivial to establish that visa discussion and the other party will have no choice but to accept. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Removal of other undisputed corrections is problematic but realistically no one is going to sanction over one instance. If they continue to block the improvements when introduced without the disputed content and without any discussion despite attempts then there may be a case. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion at MoS is not disputed but it should be remembered: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This subject is not Mr Pepys. Anyone interested in more research is thrown by the use of a death year which is not the year recorded. See Will etc.

The editor was asked to either leave the date as it was or add New Style. The whole of the original edit was reverted just to get the attention of an IP editor otherwise unlikely to react (the nature of IPs) and currently amending many similar articles. Sorry to the IP if I bumped a genuine improvement. Nice if its all over. Happiness, Eddaido (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to revert proper edits to get "attention". It also makes little sense, since there's no reason why you can't simply revert but leave the good edits in or revert the reintroduce the changes after reverting. In addition, the IP has clearly been around a long time as you yourself seemed to acknowledge but their talk page is still a red link so you have zero reason to think it was needed, please remember to WP:AGF and treat IPs as WP:HUMAN.

Finally your defence is even more flawed because the first time around you reintroduced most of the changes [131]. It was only the second time around, after the IP had already started discussion on the talk page that you simply reverted without reintroducing the good [132], so you could have gotten attention simply by replying on the talk page (i.e. even ignoring the fact you made no attempt to discuss the first time around so couldn't resonably assume the IP wouldn't have responded if you initiated the discussion). I'm not sure if you disagree with the category, you didn't reintroduce it the first time and although our article does claim with a reference he's buried there, George Wilde isn't listed in Burials and memorials in Westminster Abbey so there may be valid disagreement. But there's no way preserving "WIlliams" is a good edit. Perhaps per WP:BRD the IP shouldn't have reintroduced the year change when it was clearly disputed (although it's complicated by the fact the reason for the dispute wasn't clear and they provided good reason for it the second time around). But that's not a good enough reason to leave out clearly good edits. It's clearly not a case where the edits are so complicated that it's difficult to sort the good from the bad so yo have to wholesale revert. So no, there's no justification for your editing regardless of the rights and wrongs of the content dispute.

Please remember it's not just the IP that are affected but the whole community when you preserve flaws in our articles which someone has attempted to correct, simply to get attention. As I said, you're unlikely to be sanctioned for a single instance (well multiple instances as part of one) but if you do repeat this crap in the future, don't be surprised if you're blocked. So no, no happiness and the only reason the flaw in our article is "all over" is because I reintroduced the IP's correction (after your comment above).

Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a big misunderstanding here. Shall I go into it? Eddaido (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's up to you. The more important thing is that you don't preserve errors because you wish to wholesale revert to get attention in the future (as you implied with your first comment). Note if preserving the error was a mistake (e.g. you missed it when reverting and would have fixed it if you'd noticed or you did notice and intended to fix it but forgot), that's slightly more acceptable but it's still an important reminder to take great care when reverting. And ultimately whatever the reason preserving errors is not acceptable. So while there may be some more tolerance for the occasional honest mistake, it's still something you need to prevent. One option would be simply to avoid wholesale reverting when only simple parts of the edit are disputed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

IanB2 and Vikings (TV series)

• IanB2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vikings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A discussion began at Talk:Vikings (TV series) § links from the cast list section by IanB2 on the validity of linking character from the television series Vikings to the historical figures that the characters are inspired by. After a discussion of intermediate length and an initial edit[133], later reverted[134], I gave a suggestion as to the linking, and that was to link to the historical figures, but for characters with entries only at List of Vikings characters, to not link them. IanB2 then took this discussion the wrong way, and did link the figures to the article of the historical figures, but specifically to the subsections of "Portrayals in fiction", or similar titles: the edit[135], and then a revert[136] by Sandstein, of which IanB2 reverted[137] again. This was disagreed upon in the discussion by multiple editors, but the editor has forced this version multiple times, claiming STATUSQUO, while the status quo is the version without the "Portrayals in fiction" links, which had stood for many years, with no other editor supporting their edits, and no consensus whatsoever. I removed the links earlier this month[138], over a month after the discussion, which IanB2 reverted[139]. I then reverted again in good faith[140], which is when IanB2 reverted[141] with no explanation or edit summary. When taken to their talk page after they reverted my removal with no reason, they gave no indication that they wished to contribute to a fair discussion while leaving the proper status quo in place. I attempted to remove them again today[142], with the flow of no consensus for the links to the subsections, but I was reverted[143] thrice- this[144] is where IanB2 claimed STATUSQUO incorrectly; I have since ceased to revert to prevent edit-warring. These actions well and truly fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, specifically the fourth point as described below, and also the second point: An unrelated editor added[145] link to another historical figure, which IanB2 accused[146] me of adding "uncited links" in their revert of my edits, while not even removing the link. They then even restored[147] the link after I removed[148] it (noted that they later removed[149] it after it was brought to their attention). However, these actions definitely comply with the fourth point of OWNBEHAVIOR. If the editor wishes to take part in this discussion, they would do well to note that this is a discussion about their actions, not the content. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am disappointed with both the tone and the content of the above. This issue arose originally from a point that I raised on the talk page of the relevant article, on 31 December. Arising from this discussion, Alex proposed a solution ("links can be directed to the reference to the television series in the historical figure's article - e.g., link "Ragnar Lothbrok" to Ragnar Lodbrok#In popular culture") which I implemented as he proposed. Alex subsequently changed his mind and has several times (twice on 2 February, three times this morning) returned to the page to revert the change, without providing any explanation as to why his own proposal should be reversed. Alex made these five deletions/reverts without contributing further to the talk page on the relevant article - until this morning the last contribution was mine of 3 January in which I say I am happy to discuss further. The appropriate way for Alex to have proceded was to have responded to my invitation and set out whatever are the concerns he may now have with his own earlier suggestion, not to repeatedly edit the page without offering any justification, and then bring the matter here. I feel that the WP:OWN allegation is inappropriate, since the proposal at issue was his own suggestion to begin with, and his recent emotional behaviour in the discussion on the television manual of style (culminating in his edits of 3 February, and multiple complaints from other editors about Alex's disruptive approach) indicate that this is a policy he might usefully himself review. Finally I note that Alex's three edits of the page today each revert my original change of 31 December, and I have returned the page to status quo each time, so for disclosure we would both appear to be in breach of 3RR IanB2 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

IP hopper deleting content from India articles

A person is removing content and sources from Indian articles. After a number of reverts, the person switches IPs and repeats with similar ES. The IPs geolocate to San Francisco, Japan, and S. Korea.

• 69.167.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.146.190.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.100.20.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.247.253.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some of the articles being edited include:

• Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Textiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• INS Dweeprakshak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of government space agencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure what the person's agenda is, but the removals don't match the explanation. 09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Jim1138: please sign with four tildes, not five. I'll try to look at this later. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC).

• 103.27.223.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Just started. Jim1138 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting: (note, not showing up as an "undo". No alerts from the reverts.

• Madras Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Indian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• INS Kamorta (P28) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jim1138 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• 45.120.200.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Now active Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 (talk), Thank you for your Good Faith edits but you seem to be confused. No sourced cited information was ever deleted, only unsourced and unreliable information. Please provide cited valid references for all articles. Thanks.103.27.223.240 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.249.131.209 (talk)