Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [1] and was blankly reverted on sight [2]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [3] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [4]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [5] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [6], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [7], User talk:Koala15#No [8], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [9]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [10]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, Koala15's contribution to this new discussion on their Talk page suggests that Koala15 has learned nothing from this process. Still arbitrarily removing maintenance templates from articles without participating in the discussions they reference, a behavior just recently discussed with them here. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 _talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization ^Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 _talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [11] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After some edits to it I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala reverts with a derisory summary. I restore days later due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns and post on his talkpage: Koala responds dismissively and immediately undoes my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved does he finally visit the Talk page.

He engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We assume good faith and spend time explaining. Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

• Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 _talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 _talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization ^Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization ^Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [12], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [13]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short term block up to a month (uninvolved non admin) Clearly preventive block to stop the ongoing problems that resurface in no time. Perhaps the time off will also bring about a change for the better and prevent this from happening again. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) ^{(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207)} 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization ^Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why EauZenC initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk)^{(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207)} 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization ^Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization ^Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• List of Warner Bros. films

Hello. I'm having an issue with the same user. He's deleting information that has been proven with citations from reliable sources. He's doing so on the basis of what he thinks is necessary on the page, whereas it's not entirely up to him. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly four days since somebody commented on this, and nobody else seems interested to comment, what's been said seems to be all that'll be said, can this be closed please? With the closer doing what they see fit? Azealia911 _talk 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Final note to closer: An IP who commented on this post has seemingly been working on an account of Koala15's disruptive behavior, a very detailed account of it to be exact. After checking on it every couple days, work on it seems to have stopped. It may be worth giving it a full read through before making a formal decision on how to proceed with actions upon closure. The account of their behavior can be found here. Azealia911 _talk 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a very interesting and very detailed log. It hasn't been worked on in two days, and the penultimate edit summary is "kinda done with this", so I hope he or she posts it here in the next few days. Especially since this ANI has been here for going on one month at this point, and the IP said a week ago s/he could have it for us "within 24 hrs". Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

HOUNDING by Elvey

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

---

Sorry to bother you all. I cannot figure Elvey out. but he/she has taken a disliking to me and from time to time comes around behind me and argues against whatever I am trying to do. I have been putting up with it, but now he has started making a mess with a new editor who has a COI.

June 13: filed a COIN case naming me as an editor with a COI over Kaiser Permanente (where he has been hounding a disclosed representative of that company on the Talk page here and later here) and then refused twice here and here to make a case that I had a COI, or even to acknowledge that by listing my name in the posting, he had raised a concern about possible COI for me on that article. Incompetent, BATTLEGROUND behavior.

June 17: Followed me to articles he had never edited here (that one having to do with an editor working on the article about himself - so a COI issue) and here arguing against me randomly. I warned him to stop here.

July 8: Elvey went back to it here, seemingly randomly reverting my removal of content added by a blocked user, Nuklear and edit warred over that, and didn't stop until an uninvolved, chemical-savvy admin, Edgar181, explained to Elvey why Nuklear was blocked and that the content Nuklear added had an error in it anyway, and that my cleanup after Nuklear was OK with him. I gave Elvey a 2nd warning here about that.

Yesterday, a new instance. Doc James and Alexbrn and I are having a difficult but salvageable set of discussions with a new editor, ColumbiaLion212, with a disclosed COI who I advised not to edit the article directly, and who has made the newbie mistake of accusing us of a COI since we are disagreeing with him, but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

long narrative version of ColumbiaLion story
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As you can see from their contribs, an editor named ColumbiaLion212 showed up at the Cranial electrotherapy stimulation article after first going to the Fisher Wallace Laboratories article (a company that makes CES devices and has HQ in New York City - note the user name - 212 is the area code for NYC and Columbia University's mascot is a lion), and started edit warring to add content promotional about these devices. I opened a discussion with ColumbiaLion212 about COI in Wikipedia, and they eventually disclosed that they work for a company that makes CES devices. So in this dif I informed them that they had a COI and asked them not to edit directly but rather work things out on Talk, and make proposals there. In the meantime, ColumbiaLion212 had kept trying to work on the article (although I had advised them to take a pause while we worked out COI issues) and unfortunately went over the top and decided that the other editors there must have a COI (this happens with new editors, unfortunately) and were acting in a conspiracy to keep "good" information about CES out of WP, and left COI messages and warnings to the editors who had worked on that page in the last year, Doc James here, SandyGeorgia here, Alexbrn here, and me here. ColumbiaLion212 received a warning against doing that from Acroterion who is otherwise uninvolved here. That was difficult but salvageable (things with COI editors sometimes derail but I am ~usually~ able to work with people to get things back on track) but then Elvey showed up at ColumbiaLion's talk page and actually told ColumbiaLion that "Given the concerns you raise above (about other people's COI), I think it may be quite appropriate for you to continue to edit the article directly." This is not only incompetent and wrong but it is pure BATTLEGROUND baloney. I warned Elvey to back off here and they just came right back with more incompetent, BATTLEGROUND nonsense. I don't know if we are going to be able to get things back on track with ColumbiaLion after this bumbling.

I would like Elvey to be topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI as his behavior on Kaiser Permanente and ColumbiaLion's talk page show) and I would like a one way topic ban with regard to me since his HOUNDING of me is disrupting my work here and is harming WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Please impose a long cool-off block on Jytdog.

Response from Elvey

I twice responded to this editor's talk page accusations of HOUNDING: "Thank you for linking to that policy. In fact WP:HOUNDING#NOT says: '[T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations' 'is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly' '; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly.'." I ask that WP:HOUNDING#NOT be enforced. diff.

I don't even think there's a need for me to dredge up diffs showing his worst behavior because his diffs supposedly showing me at my worst actually make him look bad. But let me respond to each assertion:

1. His assertion re. June 13 seems to be a lie: He must know I never said he had a COI WRT Kaiser because we've reminded him so multiple times - the diffs Jytdog provided show me pointing this out and he's been told I did no such thing repeatedly not only by me but by others as well (diff) (admin User:SlimVirgin). To continue to spread this blatant falsehood here is blatant BATTLEGROUND obsessiveness.

2. Re June 17: Take a look at the 2 edits he's pissed off about and links to, where I told users he bullied, "You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages." and, "Way to follow WP:DR, be constructive and civil, SageRad." Were they good edits? I think so. Was this hounding? I already responded to that accusation on my talk page (excerpt above). That bullying is a violation of WP:BULLY policy, which Jytdog has been repeatedly chastised for, including by at least one highly trusted administrator entrusted to use powerful mops and broomsticks with care: User:Risker.

3. Re July 8: Look at the edit history and you'll see that his edit war accusation should BOOMERANG. He edit warred; I followed standard DR.

4. Re. "Yesterday", I was directed to review Jytdog's edits by another editor, and when I did so, I was troubled and responded appropriately, as the diffs Jytdog has provided show. Specifically, I went to User:ColumbiaLion212's talk page because User:Brianhe directed me there with this edit. So I wasn't following Jytdog there at all, let alone hounding him. And even if I had followed him there, I was pointing out that he was violating WP:NOEDIT, so WP:HOUNDING#NOT is far more applicable than WP:HOUNDING . --Elvey^(t•c) 00:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

5. He grossly misrepresents when he says ColumbiaLion212 "finally" disclosed working for a company that makes CES devices; User:ColumbiaLion212 did so a day after being asked - with his very next edit - his 9th edit on Wikipedia!

6. Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As you usual Elvey makes a garble of things. In my interactions with editors who declare a COI, I never say "cannot" and you will not find any diffs where I did. Editors with a COI are strongly discouraged, and the dif he points to shows that I understand that very well. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

6b. Sorry but here you are telling the respectable subject of a BLP that the COI policy does not allow him to directly edit his BLP. Re your comment about #6: I provided a diff, in which he indeed says "cannot" (without the quotes). And the rest of diff does show him expressing the opinion that I described. If there's a more clear and concise way to express that Jytdog says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." is actually a "cannot", I'm all ears. I note that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5! --Elvey^(t•c) 05:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not responding to you point by point because most of what you write is incoherent. Others will be able to see that. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's one way to dodge scrutiny. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent, so no he was not able to see that. Based on that, I would ask that any interaction ban apply to Jytdog, rather than be one-way on me. Jytdog is saying I should be banned because of the behavior defended in #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and yet Jytdog refuses to discuss it. That's not reasonable or fair. I've launched a solid defense of 1-6. Yet Jytdog demands I self-impose a ban for the behavior addressed in 1-6. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

no, i have asked the community to do this. if you just agree it will save a lot of drama but you are apparently unwilling. so on we go. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I note, again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Snowded says my writing is perfectly coherent. You have made no specific requests for clarification. Your refusing to respond is disruptive; respond or retract your campaign, Jytdog.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I note, yet again, that you have not responded regarding #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6b. Can someone else respond? --Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

When opening this case, Jytdog notified no fewer than three admins and two other users who take his extremeist view of COI and I ask that any comments from the canvassed users be disregarded and that our policy on canvassing be enforced with the requested block. A WP:Sham consensus may be the result of such canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC} ) signed this additional bit of mess-making by ElveyJytdog (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that when naming an editor in a post at ANI, you are meant to notify them? That is not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Snowded: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Snowded, got my diffs in a twist: it was Elvey who added it, so - to Elvy: Why did you add a canvassing template to my comment? I was not canvassed. Please strike or provide some justification. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's not canvassing, then the rule against canvassing has a giant loophole. Pinging users surely accomplishes what other forms of canvassing accomplish. But if you and Jytdog want to defend that use of the loophole, I won't fight you. The canvassing tag has been removed. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey of responses to proposal to sanction

• Note: A "Community sanction proposal" has been opened away below, below the closed subsection: here -- Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 172.56.18.107 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHY ? Acroterion (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

172.56.18.107 has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block user Elvey. The accusations in the COIN charge are vague, unsupported, and unhelpful. I have tried to follow this editor's diatribes without success. @Elvey: This discussion and my investigations make it appear that you are incompetent to edit here. Please correct me by providing one or more specific edits where user Jytdog has gone astray, and how you think that they have gone astray. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After looking at Elvey's response (try following #6, for example), I reiterate my request that Elvey be blocked temporarily and in addition banned from COI topics indefinitely. Editor does not seem to be competent to have these conversations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban I haven't seen WP:COIN recently, but an example of clueless COI enthusiasm is here. If there are other similar examples a topic ban is required because blundering around like that could tip the balance for some editors and make them retire. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Ugh. Normally I'd be quite supportive of attempts to root out COI, but the discussion that Elvey has initiated with regards to Doc James and Jytdog that have been linked to here have an unpleasant whiff of McCarthyism about them. It's not serious enough to warrant a topic ban yet in my view, but at the same time it's neither helpful or appropriate to have self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has been a member of the COI Party. It very well could turn into a topic ban or other sanctions unless Elvey moderates their approach in the future, and that would be unfortunate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil to be clear, the reason I asked for the topic ban from COI is Elvey's incompetent interference in ongoing COI management efforts, as with ColumbiaLion212 (which was especially bad), and his interactions with the declared conflicted editor at KaiserPermanente where he abused the Talk page with soapboxing accusations. As you can see Elvey is only pushing harder here; he does not appear to be corrigible. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lankiveil - Re. "self-appointed COI cops wandering around demanding to know if someone is or has [a COI]" - Are you not aware that Jytdog has been going around, bullying a great many users, demanding to know if they have a COI? Need more diffs? I've already provided some. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about Jytdog here, I am talking about you. Jytdog may be a sinner or a saint, but that does not excuse your own behaviour in this area, which I regard as problematic. Seeking out COI is good, asking leading questions of editors without some proof to substantiate your suspicions creates a chilling effect that is not helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Elvey, asking about someone's relationship is not demanding. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support COI topic ban ColumbiaLion212 had gone off the rails badly but was being managed, but then Elvey came storming to their Talk page, apparently in furtherance of some kind of feud with Jytdog, and actually encouraged them to continue their COI-tainted editing. Elvey has not responded to questions about this and show no sign of getting a clue about how bad it was, so I believe a block is necessary as a preventative measure. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 172.56.18.107 is the same user that set up https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/with_replies! Wasn't me. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Elvey and Jytdog, and COI topic ban for Elvey. His arguments here make it pretty plain that he is engaging in motivated reasoning and that this has led him to a view of COI which leads to his making - ahem - unhelpful comments. I think six months should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While Jytdog is annoyed with the other editor (who, AFAICT, made no accusations of COI about Jytdog per se), the behaviour does not, IMO, rise to the level where sanctions are called for at all. The tendency to ask for sanctions when there is a reasonable disagreement is all too common on Wikipedia at this point. I note Snowded's reasoning below. Collect (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't often agree with Collect ;-) but in this case I do. I suggest both editors reflect a little and try and find a way to see value in the others comments before we move to sanctions. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMHO, seeking sanctions on another editor is the wrong way to go. But, if both individuals can't get along? then a 2-way IBAN would be best for them. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To those opposing. This is about Elvey's behavior. Elvey is hounding me, not vice versa. And in the course of Elvey's hounding, Elvey inserted himself into a discussion with a new editor with a COI that was already going off the rails, and pushed it over a cliff. It is the damage to other editors and to the overall effort to manage COI in WP that led me here. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The best route here for you, would be to ignore Elvey. If Elvey were to follow you around, while you're ignoring him/her? then he/she would be viewed as harrassing you. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do - I don't go fight about every harassing edit Elvey makes. But when Elvey inserts him/herself into a discussion as they did with ColumbiaLion and as they did at KaiserPermanente, they make a mess of things that cannot be ignored. Their incompetent actions on COI issues are what I am really after here. I want the one-way ban because that is what apparently drove these bumbling "interventions", and they are already fixed on me and this posting will only make that worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Claiming you've never followed me around is hogwash. The new editor hasn't been pushed off the rails; he's been scared off by Jytdog. Hasn't been back. WP:BITE, WP:BULLY etc, in action. You chased him off like a good guard dog. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never followed you around and you have zero diffs to prove that. More nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support either a COI topic ban of Elvey per Johnuniq and/or a one-way interaction ban of Elvey regarding Jytdog per Guy. I think that the discussion has gotten considerably off-track, but I also think that the ways in which it has gotten off-track support the appropriateness of some restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is one or the other, I would choose topic banning from COI, as that is the most damaging to the community.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We know you'd like that, but we're trying to determine what's equitable and practical, not what gives the complainant what he most wants.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if I've misrepresented policy, I'd really like to know how, because I don't want to do that. The only way they've been able to suggest I've misrepresented policy has been to misrepresent what I've said, and then reach false conclusions based on false evidence - which your 'per Guy' suggests has worked. Guy grossly misrepresented my positions and then accused me of having those bad opinions, and refused to address the misrepresentations. What the hell is OK about that? If I've pointed out a true policy that you don't want what you see as the wrong people to know about, I've, reluctantly, offered to stop doing so under the terms below, at #Proposal. Please consider endorsing it. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked me to reply, I will. I've read it, and I agree with Guy. I don't see the problem as being about misrepresenting policy, but as exhausting the community's patience with the way you communicate with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just several days ago User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th said here that Jytdog should be banned from COI areas. User:Viriditas chimed in, "Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics?" --Elvey^(t•c) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker recently said of Jytdog, "I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material." I do too. Right after the shoddy treatment Jytdog gave Clockback, a subject of our biographical material, and NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR, I responded with factually correct information, which no one is disputing, but some here nevertheless want to ban me for. What the hell kind of respect for the subjects of BLP is that? --Elvey^(t•c) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this - I'm not saying anything about Jytdog, one way or another. We resolved our issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Someone had a concern" isn't very helpful. I'd like to hear from those four editors or have specific pointers to the discussions of what they think the alleged issues with Jytdog are. Never mind, I found it. Jytdog having any COI-patrolling and civility issues of his own would not magically make Elvey's actions okey-dokey, but we may be looking at a mutual interaction ban, even a mutual topic ban or other action; Upate:I don't see a mutual issue. ANI is not a forum for one side to "win" with quicker and craftier argumentation or a bigger enourage. I'm not convinced a long topic ban is needed here, though, for anyone. If an editor has WP:COMPETENCE problems (which Elvey clearly does with regard to at least COI, CIVIL, and CANVASS interpretation), this is generally resolved with experience, which they cannot gain if barred from the area in which they need to develop better competence. If there's an interaction ban, set a time limit, like 6 months. Long-term ones are too easily gamed, are onerous, and usually don't serve any purpose but cementing a dispute forever instead of letting it naturally come to a "why were we even fighting?'" WP:DGAF realization, and become by-gones. Permanent topic bans are rarely useful except with regard to actual soapboxing POV-pushers, or "great wrongs" battlegrounders, and just serve to create martyrs-in-their-own-minds among editors who mean well but are "differently clued" at the moment. I do agree that the COIN filing by Elvey of vague, unsupported-aspersion casting should not go unaddressed, probably with a 3-month COI topic ban, regardless of other matters and outcomes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Updated. 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish I was recently brought to Arbcom (case was dismissed) and at the same time to ANI (no action) over my COI activities. Elvey is having a field day quoting stuff from those events. I took a week off from dealing with COI issues to get feedback as advised at Arbcom and got some good feedback, which I've been reflecting on; I still have still not fully gone back to my former levels of COI work as I am still considering some things. Elvey keeps quoting stuff from those stale (and older) cases as though it is hot news.

The problem with Elvey's involvement in COI matters is that he is "intervening" in ongoing interactions with new editors who have or may have a COI (which are often delicate and require respect and diplomacy) and writing frankly incompetent things. Sometimes harassing the conflicted editors, and sometimes harassing me and encouraging bad behavior by the conflicted editor. There is no sense to it. This is really bad with new editors, especially, who are trying to learn how WP works, under pressure from their COI.

Anyway, I recognize that the community will do as it will. But working on live COI issues is not a training ground. Nothing will prevent Elvey from reading COI actions and getting their head on straight, and asking for an indef to be lifted when they can show they understand things better. But I need to stop responding to things here - have written too much already. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I'm interested in due diligence. Not every dogpile indicates consensus, but often bandwagon mentality, and every argument has at least two sides. Just because ArbCom or ANI previously didn't act on something doesn't mean it's not relevant, since patterns emerge over time. But I have no interest in fishing for one with regard to you; I just asked for clarification of what complaints others had raised (and it was the BITE one that caught my eye, not a COI one, but I treat all claims of wiki-wrongdoing with skepticism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed Risker's and related material, saw GregJackP's disavowal of a current dispute, and don't see a major issue. The two arbs who made the point to you that COI and paid editing are more distinct that you seemed to think at that time, probably got that point across (that was much earlier in the month), and I don't see evidence they didn't. Absent a showing of really recent issues in this regard, or of newbie-biting that's also recent, I'm satisfied there's no boomerang of any kind here, but hope the message was absorbed, to get COI/PAID policy understanding in synch with the community's if you're going to be helping new editors who have conflicts of interest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Recommendation: Elvey should be subject to a one-way interaction-ban from Jytdog, and a topic-ban from COI-related discussions and processes, for 3-6 months (concurrent) in both cases; long enough to learn these ropes and re-examine his approach. More than 1 year would be counterproductive and patently punitive at this stage. I'm particularly concerned about the aggressive nature of Elvey's approach to all this, especially the aspersion casting at WP:COIN, which can, as someone else said, "tip the balance" and drive incoming editors away. Because of the BLP connection, we have to be especially careful in this area. The sarcastic, lecturing tone of Elvey's responses here is not a good sign. WP:COMMONSENSE escape valve: Elvey should be able to report what he is sure is a glaringly obvious, unmistakable COI problem, to an admin, who could determine whether it required further investigation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What is our CoI policy actually?

Jytdog sees what he wants to see in our CoI policy; he says here that he believes that the "very strongly discouraged" in "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing." "is actually a cannot". I suggest he be blocked until he is no longer delusional about what the CoI policy actually is, because he has disclosed, and demonstrated that it is his intent to attempt to enforce a nonexistent policy.

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.

The diff above shows that:

Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

User:Snowded told Jytdog his "absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help." I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it.

Risker told Jytdog, "Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise." at 12:51 pm, 14 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

User:Newyorkbrad told Jytdog: "Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far?" at 11:10 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

But Risker doesn't expect Jytdog to listen; I see a need for admin action is proven by this comment and driven home by Jytdog's actions leading up to this ANI dispute: "Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears (referring to Jytdog's ears) for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow." at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen.

"Jytdog I strongly suggest stepping away from COI issues until you have taken on board the community's concerns (expressed well by Risker) regarding your editing in the area, if you don't then I would not be surprised to see a topic ban proposed at AN/I." -User:Thryduulf at 3:33 am, 12 July 2015 (UTC−7)

I wish Jytdog would listen or be given some quiet time to think about it, or made to heed this. Said topic ban is hereby proposed - probably where Jytdog got the idea to propose the same ban for me!

--Elvey^(t•c) 03:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Within the range of views that exist within WP -- which range from very strong opposition to editors with a COI even being part of the community, to opposition to dealing with COI at all and just focusing on content -- I have a moderate interpretation of COI - and above all a view centered on talking with people about what we all care about - namely good content. Additionally, we don't have a COI policy at all. We have a COI guideline. Elvey's post from its header on, is an incoherent ramble, cherry picked from various discussions, and a demonstration of what I mean about their lack of competence to discuss these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey would you please add difs to your quotes above? I checked Risker's contribs and they made no comment at 12:56 pm, 13 June 2015. And, by the way, I took my time out as suggested at the Arbcom case that was declined with no action, and got some very helpful feedback. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put a few asterisks next to a diff that provides what you requested, Jytdog. (And times are UTC−7.) Here it is again, since you're having trouble finding it:

Jytdog was ***roundly critized by two longtime arbitrators for his extreme interpretations of our CoI policy and treatment of User:Snowded - none other than User:Risker, who is sick of him and User:Newyorkbrad.--Elvey^(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The harder you twist, the worse you look. The "sick of him" is especially ugly, as what Risker was sick of what Atsme and I going back and forth. What would be useful would be if you would promise to stop following me around, and stay away from COI issues, which you are making a mess of. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Jytdog, that wasn't it at all. It was about you not me, and it's time for you to seriously self-analyze because your behavior is extremely problematic. Risker stated: "Enough, Jytdog; stop haranguing people. We're talking about half a dozen links, half of which are on pages that have already gone through community review and were deemed to be reasonable additions to the page. I don't accept this sort of thing on my talk page. You are not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no. Risker (talk) 1:23 pm, 6 July 2015, Monday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)" [14] And with regards to you telling other editors to stop following you around - you need to self-analyze in that department, too. Atsme^📞📧 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

OK, if there's a consensus that I need to

1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI, then I will stop doing so.

If you think I should to stop doing that, or shouldn't, please indicate that below. But please also explain WHY I should or shouldn't stop doing so (optional). --Elvey^(t•c) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated it above. I can tell you from long personal experience of handling emails at OTRS, and as an admin for nearly ten years now, that your advice to these users is profoundly unhelpful and the most likely outcome of their following your advice is that they will end up blocked or banned. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Guy is on record saying that users (this user at least) must not inform users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and users (this user at least) must not inform users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI. I hear you when you say that this true advice is nonetheless profoundly unhelpful. Anyone else agree? User:Jytdog? Say so here and I'll stop. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That is mostly incorrect and incoherent, Elvey. I don't tell people not to edit articles; I ask them not to.

And there are lots of perspectives in the community about how the ToU applies to editors with a COI. Some interpret the ToU as applying only narrowly to say freelancers who are literally paid to edit or create WP articles, and would not apply the ToU to a company employee writing about their company of their own volition. Others interpret the application of the ToU more broadly. Also, the ToU only requires disclosure - it says nothing about editing WP articles. Your discussion is all confused, and you are trying to draw lines through that stew. It can't be done. So I cannot affirm or deny what you write.

I will say that your emphasizing what people with a COI can do (which is not clear in WP) instead of what they should do (which is clearly described in the COI guideline), is a destructive thing.

And what is profoundly unhelpful is your fiercely bringing your confused ideas and your beef with me (whatever that is) into ongoing discussions with editors who have or may have a COI. What I have asked for, is for you to say away from me, and stay out of COI issues. Will you agree to do those two things? Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I expect your behavior won't change, despite what Risker, Newyorkbrad and a dozen other folks have told you, so yes, I propose we avoid each other. I've offered the proposal in this section as a solution. Clearly there's lots of feedback for both of us here and on the huge thread on Risker's talk page on how we could improve our approach to COI issues. I intend to change my behavior accordingly, and you have said that you will too. Progress, I dare say? --Elvey^(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No progress. Your ideas still appear to be as confused as they were before and you have not acknowledged once here that you have made a hash of things in your pursuit of me. And again - you are following me around; if you stop doing that and let go, you will not find me in front of you anymore. I don't want to interact with you; the fixation is yours. And nothing new has been to said to me here about COI, nor have I said anything new. Everything you have brought here about me is stale and dealt with already. Please just agree to stay away from me and from COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from sort of involved editor

Interesting. I agree with Jytdog that Elvey is cherry picking (although he is not incoherent) and I am also strongly of the opinion that Jytdog has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. However I don't think Jytog has a moderate interpretation of COI. He has an assertive/bureaucratic approach to COI not a conversational one and acts (not just in my case) as if the guideline is policy. In the incident which gave rise to the above an article about a framework I created was subject to attack by a commercial rival. After a couple of rounds I (recognising my involvement) took the matter the Administrators Notice Board and an independent admin gave the offending editor an 'only warning' and the issue appeared resolved. Jytdog then arrived and the situation escalated for some time with multiple notices, postings, warnings and the like. In effect a guideline was acted on as if it was policy.

Based on that experience and monitoring other COI notices by Jytog and others, I've been meaning to write up a suggested guideline for the COI notice board when I get time. But given this has been brought up I think there are a few points that it would be useful to discuss:

1. Any editor getting involved in issuing a COI notice needs to make a very clear distinction between a 'paid' editor and one who has an interest in a page. There is a radical difference between getting the odd lecture or consultancy fee and being employed to directly edit Wikipedia.
2. The COI notices used tend to take a all editors with any COI however remote are all sinners' approach which can have a chilling effect. We could do with two different notices: One for those paid and the other for those with some interest. In fact templating should be discouraged in the latter case
3. It is clear that in respect of an academic framework the creator of that framework is also a subject matter expert. Any notice should make that clear. Asserting that an editor in this situation should not edit the article (per Jytdog) is not policy and should not be asserted as such
4. In general any editor taking a COI monitoring role should exercise care not to (i) inflame a conflict and (ii) not to come across as a bureaucratic enforcement agent. In this case Jytdog could have acknowledged that I had not taken part in an edit war, despite the posting of a false statement, but had brought in a neutral admin pretty quickly. I asked him if he thought I had made any edits against policy and got no reply. I'm an experienced enough editor not to have taken offence but I can think of a few academic colleagues, not familiar with some the 'guideline bureaucracy culture' in some parts of Wikipedia might have taken it differently.

So regardless of the cherry picking and/or Jytdog's accusation of incoherent rambling (not helpful) there is an issue for the community here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WPT:COIN or WPT:COI not here. The issue is the editor's conduct towards each other, not the minutia of what the technical grounds of a policy are or are not. And we have a policy that no one really follows and there's little support for, then it's time for the policy to reflect reality not the other way around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And at some stage I will move a more elaborate version of it there, but the comment was relevant in so far as it reflects a wider problem that undiscriminating COI enforcement can create. As to your comments on policy and reality, the solution to that is not the current COI practice which needs more development - then it might be possible for it to become policy. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded Thanks for your remarks! The policy issues that came into play in our interaction were WP:NLT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLPCOI (BLP applies to talk pages too) all related to your real world disputes with the other editor, that the two of you carried into WP. I have only run across a few (maybe three) situations where two editors, each with such clear COIs of their own, also were in conflict in the RW and carried that into WP. That is not a common situation - a double COI in a way (your own, and the conflict with the other editor, and the same for the other editor) - and my interactions with editors with potential or already-declared conflicts generally do not get near so intense; those three policy issues generally don't come into them. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you just further illustrate the point I was trying to make Jytdog. There was a RW conflict, what you failed to realise was that I had responded to the wikipedia conflict by pulling in a neutral admin to avoid escalation. You then arrived and created the conditions that allowed an unnecessary conflict to escalate. My points above about handling different types of COI was meant to try and prevent that sort of thing. It was made worse by your subsequent attempt (the Elvey extracts above) to challenge my right to even talk about the issue. Fortunately you were overruled by two former arbcom members. You continue to see COI as black and white rather than understanding the difference between paid editing and legitimate interest even subject matter expertise. Until you engage with the issue of the manner of your interactions you are going to end up in more conflicts. I can see that Elvey's behaviour is problematic, but so is yours. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, this is where COI issues get so difficult - even now you still seem unclear on your own COI. You have academic claims of ownership of the concept, you founded a company based on the concept and serve as CSO of that company and make money lecturing about it etc (direct financial interests) and you have an external conflict with another editor who has a competing company. If only the first were at play, our interactions would have been very, very different. As I wrote above, having two editors in conflict here in WP each with their own COIs and in RW conflicts with each other is rare, and you still don't seem to recognize how locked-in to that conflict you were. Also, I never challenged your right to talk about it - I thought you should disclose that you had a COI in articles you write about, when you posted at WT:COI. Risker disagreed with how I expressed that. Also, my views on COI are laid out on my Userpage and what you will find there, is very far from black and white. Finally, I highly value subject matter expertise in WP, in line with the wider WP community. Our very valuable essay on WP:EXPERT welcomes experts, and warns experts not to use WP as a platform to promote their own ideas and publications. That is how I treat experts as well, when that is the only issue. Look at my interactions with User:Gjboyle on their talk page, for example. The picture you are painting of me is not accurate. It is very much shaped by our difficult interaction which I have acknowledged I could have handled better. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand the exact nature of my interest in that article and the nature of the conflict. I go out of my way never to do a primary edit on either of the two articles I am associated with so the idea I am using wikipedia as a platform to promote my ideas is a nonsense. I have a framework which has revived multiple awards and citations therefore I have an interest in that article. I didn't found a company based on that concept, its one framework and our main focus is software. You've been told that but you don't listen. The fact that you refuse to see any different between that and a paid editor remains problematic. The fact that your response to any editor who disagrees with you on something is to tell them they don't understand their own position when you have at best surface knowledge is a problem. What you fail to see is that your attitude and method of engagement is a PART of the problem. So whatever your intentions you are creating problems. In the case it question it was your intervention that caused the conflict and you still can't see that. Now this is probably not going anywhere so having made the point I will leave it. I hope when I bring proposals on this to the COI notice board we can find a way to work together ----Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I did take a break from COI work per the advice at arbcom, and I did get valuable feedback on my talk page. I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that. And we will probably continue to disagree about what happened at Cynefin article; I do acknowledge that I got too harsh there and was part of the problem; that is why I apologized. And as I wrote at Risker's page, there is a difference between paid editing and other forms of COI. Paid editing is a subset of COI which in turn is a subset of advocacy, and it is advocacy that shows up in bad WP content. The ToU apply only to paid editing. So please don't misrepresent me. I also ask you to reconsider your !vote above. Whatever you think about me, Elvey's behavior has been very out of line. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(Belated requests: Jytdog, stop attacking Snowded here. It's derailing the discussion. Snowded, don't feel the need to defend yourself here.) Jytdog says above, "I have heard, that I can come across too stridently. I have heard that." I am happy to hear that. However this diff and the interactions Snowded points to suggest the behavior hasn't improved. That recent threatening of a new user with an indefinite ban like that appears to be calculated to maximize Chilling Effects. That's why I got involved. But apparently, consensus is building (as shown by the support votes here) that those chilling effects are just dandy and I'm not to interfere. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

He isn't attacking we have a difference of opinion. I seriously suggest you just back off for a bit. At the moment a few of us think that this should just be left and there is no need for an interaction ban or a topic ban. I still think that but if you get into a Battleground mentality some sort of restriction will be needed. Per my suggestion on your talk page I think you should just stop for a bit and ping me or another editor if you something is wrong and we can look at it. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban from all COI-related discussions for Elvey. This is an issue of WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING policy not COI. Elvey doesn't care about the COI policy, and just seems to use the COI policy as an excuse to lord it over people that have identified themselves in some way. If the dispute is about WP:COI policy, then the discussion belongs as that talk page not at ANI (or at WPT:COIN). Arguments about policy here aren't going to go anywhere. Here, we can discuss your individual ability to respond to potential COI issues and how in particular you act with each person you have concerns about. The problem is Elvey seems to use potential COI issues as an excuse to attack people. If you can't be civil with potential issues, then you'll be stopped to prevent extra work for the rest of us. This comment is less about COI issue and is based someone using their ability to know a person's identity to make a snide off-topic uncivil remark. There was no discussion about drug pricing, not even something that the representative brought up, just an excuse for Elvey for start a fight. This discussion is basically the same as WP:OUTING people to win fights. Frankly, Elvey is getting close to WP:OUTING issues and I think an outright indefinite block may be needed if the editor insists on just hunting around for fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue User:Snowded raised and you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist, Ricky, is that of Jytdog's uncivil behavior toward me, Snowded and many others. Don't try to hand wave it away as off topic for ANI. Holy shit! There are 113 mentions of Jytdog's name on this page, and only half of them are in this ("HOUNDING by Elvey") section. Jytdog seems to live here.--Elvey^(t•c) 07:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Snowded, I extracted the relevant comments from a single conversation. If that's cherry picking, then I picked cherries.

Yes, he acts as if it's policy that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI. There is no such policy. But that's not all. There's no such guideline EITHER! There's been a HUGE push to get the COI guideline changed to say that an editor must not edit an article if they have a CoI - there have been 4 huge, formal RfC campaigns. But they didn't succeed. I voted for 'em. But it's dishonest to go around deceiving people into believing CoI says what it'd say if one of those campaigns had been successful. so I don't do it.

1. Yes! I mistook one for the other recently, but unlike some users, I'm willing to recognize my mistakes.
2. Yes! I recently proposed a new template just for when a FCoI disclosure notice is not adequate.
3. Absolutely!
4. Yes, I tried to do that when I approached DocJames, and he was entirely cordial in response (though perhaps he's infallibly cordial). I still got attacked here for doing so. Refusing to address the concerns I've raised other than to dismiss them as "incoherent" is not in accord with policy, which requires that users respond when reasonable concerns are raised.

Thanks for piping up. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not behave as though it is policy. Most people, when approached respectfully and informed about the COI guideline and its advice, are happy to comply. Which has been a really pleasant part of the doing the COI work. Even editors with a COI understand that if WP lacks integrity, the public will stop trusting it, and it will become useless for people to learn anything about whatever their external interest is. Jytdog (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think you intent to behave as if it was policy, but having looked at your interactions not only in my case but others I think you come across that way. Fast templating, assertive statements without qualification; threats of ANI referral; all create that impression. Your call if you want to listen to that or not. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, I tell people I will bring them to ANI when they violate policy and I have some actual case to make here. I have not told anyone I would bring them to ANI for a COI issue per se. I never assert that someone actually has a COI unless they have already disclosed it. I do make assertions about behavior and editing that are always 100% supportable. I do ask questions. I do ask people to follow the COI guideline. I did get way too hot with you and with Atsme, for sure, for different reasons. I apologized to both of you. I did push too hard there. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the acknowledgement it gives a way forward. I would suggest that saying that if someone doesn't do what you want you will take them to ANI and that you have a successful track record is probably an intervention of LAST resort. Better to explore understanding of what has happened and policy before jumping to the threat :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not helping Snowded. Elvey, I'm not particularly concerned about any incivility towards you. I'm concerned about you attacking other editors out of the blue under the justification of "good intentions" to advocate for the COI policy. Again, I look at the Kaiser talk page post and see someone who seems out to find a fight to win. Everything else falls from that. Are you capable of offering a moderate incremental discussion (namely, if you think there's a problem (a) post a discussion on the article in question; (b) bring it up at COI; or (c) at the very least communicate to the people you accuse without presuming their guilt ahead of time) or is it just "let me do what I can or else I can do nothing at all"? WP:OUTING is a policy too and I've never felt that harassing individuals to protect us from some hypothetical COI is a long-term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is some new definition of 'sarcasm' is it Ricky? If you misinterpret that phrase you might well have misinterpreted others. Maybe you could help by pointing me to the diffs that indicate a possible outing? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy status

Elvey is right that the COI guideline is a guideline not a policy. It offers guidance for users on how to edit a subject in which they have a vested interest. He is wrong, however, to assert that ti does not have the force of policy. In fact, the COI guideline exists to help people avoid a global site ban from all WMF websites. The WMF Terms of Use say:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

— Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use

Obviously there is scope for Elvey to wikilawyer about the precise meaning of compensation, but policies are interpreted using Clue, not weaselly lawyer speak. Anyone who edits in a way that may result in personal gain, or who edits Wikipedia on their employer's dollar (i.e. while at work) risks falling foul of this bright line rule.

The guideline has another very important purpose.

Any company or individual who edits Wikipedia with an undisclosed conflict of interest, risks substantial reputational damage. We have seen this already with the congressional editing scandal.

I wrote the boilerplate guidance to company representatives at OTRS, I also wrote the guidance to BLP subjects, and both of them make the same point: in order to protect your reputation and preserve your rights to edit, we strongly recommend that you follow the COI guidelines, which are designed to ensure transparency and facilitate engagement with the Wikipedia community to ensure rapid resolution of issues you might have with an article.

It's there for a reason. Elvey clearly does not understand that reason. Perhaps, having read this, he might. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, in short, no, he still doesn't. I reiterate my support for a restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd promise to stop asserting the foolishness you say I'm asserting, and so forth, but it would be very much like promising to stop beating my wife. You insist on grossly misrepresenting my position. What part of "I agree, users should follow the COI guidelines" do you not understand? That was and remains my stated position. Please stop mislabeling opinions that aren't mine. Shame on you for that. I'm a human being. Have you no shame?--Elvey^(t•c) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytog, you said last month, "Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate." so how have you done that. I see no change, specifically: Risker told Jytdog, "The ToU doesn't say what you think it says." at 10:02 am, 13 June 2015 (UTC−7) HOW has your understanding of what the ToU says changed?--Elvey^(t•c) 02:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

---

COI needs updating or clarification

I'd recommend ya'll go to WP:COI, as it is the core of the above disagreements. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI is clear enough, the issue is Elvey's idiosyncratic interpretation of it. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The core of this ANI thread is Elvey's unacceptable behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If my interpretation is idiosyncratic, why is Risker getting on Jytdog's case about his misinterpretation? GoodDay is right - WP:COI is NOT clear enough. All these arguments are very strong evidence of that. If I'm wrong for telling people the truth about what WP:COI says, then surely that's damn good evidence that WP:COI needs to change to say that Paid advocates must not engage in direct article editing. Unfortunately attempts to change it to say that have failed, and attempts to get ArbCom to help (by others; I haven't tried) have fallen flat. Right, User:Coretheapple? --Elvey^(t•c) 17:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, not accurate. It is not clear what Risker's current stance on me is. Risker expressed objections and I took feedback on board and have adjusted how I operate. Please stop bringing up stale issues. And your confusion and your hounding and disruptive behavior, does not mean there is a problem with the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD. Writing for Wikipedia is analogous to how scientists contribute to review articles, you must base everything on reliable sources, you cannot do original research. Your peers will check if what you write is up to standards. Now, in some less reliable discipines like e.g. medical science, you do have a problem with COI, authors are required to declare them in articles. But Wikipedia is much more like a hard science discipline like physics than a softer science like medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"WP:COI should be put up for WP:MFD." Poppycock. If anything it should be stiffened and made policy. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Which would mean that anonymous editing would have to end, editors would have to submit their CV's the WMF as part of a formal application to become editor here. Admins would have access to the submitted documents to check if the editors are sticking to the COI policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no correlation between "stiffening COI" and IP editing having to end, that's pretty much a straw man, nor do any of the other dire results you predict follow in any logical way from the premise - it's all pretty much hyperbole, innit?. However I will say frankly that the project would be much better off if IP editing had been ended many years ago, since its downside far out weighs its upside, and it's mostly still here for political/philosophical reasons that have no relevance to the reality of life in the trenches. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would end IP editing as well for similar reasons. It means people can too readily hide an interest. But it is also the case that in many articles enforcement of the COI as interpreted by most of its enthusiasts would mean that subject matter experts were confined to requesting changes to articles from patrolling COI bureaucrats which would be equally disruptive. Banning ALL paid editing, restricting University projects to drafts that would then be reviewed would all be more helpful activities. Key is to stop the one size fits all COI approach currently being practiced and advocated. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey

Current results 14:2 14:3* 15:3* in favor of the proposal. We have had ~48 hrs and sufficient participation and supermajority. This is ripe for uninvolved administrator close and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed:

Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed to the community in six months.

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• The discussion above shows six supports for a topic ban of various durations (Johnuniq + Alexbrn + Guy (JzG) + Ricky81682 + Tryptofish + SMcCandlish) and two opposes (Snowded + GoodDay). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• More lies misrepresentation. (So what else is new?) Collect voted oppose too. With my !vote, it's 4:6. Way to use dirty campaign tricks, Johnuniq. Too bad there's no voting fraud hotline to call. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies for the accidental omission of Collect who opposed sanctions above (and below). The omission of Jytdog and Elvey was intentional as it did not seem useful to include the two protagonists. I listed the names specifically so others could check. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but for it to properly stick absent community or arbcom sanctions we really need a formal proposal. Admins can't just say "I ban you", the community can... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support It is time to move on. If Elvey won't drop the stick on their own perhaps we should encourage them.--Adam in MO Talk 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my comments above - my view is strengthened, in fact, because Elvey has shown no undertanding of why his intervention was so bad, and has instead mounted a belligerent defence of himself in which it seems only others are held to be at fault. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support After reading through all of this I see no other alternative. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any vote! based on gross misrepresentations of my opinion should not be counted. I shouldn't be banned for informing users of what WP:CoI says, which what this is really about. That's the behavior this is intended to prevent. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the OP. Elvey's behavior is only getting more disruptive as this thread continues. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian measures simply do not work, and the evidence that they are needed in the case at hand is weak. If the stick is being dropped, let it stay on the ground. Collect (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything Draconian about a 6-month ban from a single noticeboard. Nor do I see a dropping of the stick with respect to the added comments about "dirty campaign tricks". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. I don't see you accepting my request for someone work with me. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish to be clear, the proposal is a topic ban from "COI, broadly construed" - so not just the COIN noticeboard.Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. But, as is becoming ever-increasingly clear, it is far from Draconian, in context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, all the votes above were made before Johnuniq's false summary of the vote was noted or corrected. Also, there was just a !vote on this; which shows a 6:4 result. Holding another one because there was no consensus because User:Collect, User:Snowded User:GoodDay and User:Elvey opposed is unfair and a policy violation.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that I modified Elvey's formatting to make this section more manageable, but Elvey's reference to votes above refers to votes dated prior to 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC), so anything added subsequently to that time is after the response to the summary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agreed to drop the stick, and have done so. I did:

1. stop informing users who are told not to edit articles because they have a COI the truth - that the COI policy guideline only discourages users with a COI from editing but does not forbid it and
2. Stop informing users that if it applies to them, they must comply with the ToU clauses requiring disclosure of FCoI.

The quality of the reasoning in the !vote so far is interesting. There isn't any. Proposals must be !votes. So I'd appreciate a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me cuz I "exhausted the patience of the community"? What am I supposed to learn from that? Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damnd; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I hadn't read of any of Jytdogs promises to change his behavior regarding COI topics, and so I regret how I responded when I saw him misrepresenting policy again. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support This User talk:Johnuniq#Deliberately introducing incorrect information into an ANI discussion is not dropping the stick and reinforces the concerns expressed throughout this thread.MarnetteD|Talk 23:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? Seriously? You would be totally OK with it if a vote to ban you was mis-counted against you, your views were misrepresented, and when you asked that they be presented accurately, your request was blown off? Sorry, but I'm a human being. I have feelings. Despite all the misrepresentation, I haven't cursed anyone out. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Try not to yourself blocked entirely? That's why dropping the stick is about. There's more to harassment and disruption than cursing people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I asked what to do, not what to not do. I'm supposed to be OK with the misrepresentation of the vote, the misrepresentation of my views, the double jeopardy, etc? I have to be OK with those things or I'm not dropping the stick? You didn't answer that question. Please do. And see section below--Elvey^(t•c) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all COI-related commentary not just the board, as I said above. The antics go way beyond disruption at the noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I see that as a !vote about #6, because that's what you refer to, and hence a !vote in favor of Jytdog misrepresenting WP:CoI and against me pointing out what it actually is. I already agreed to stop doing that. So you're apparently voting for punitive measures. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I'm voting that based on your inability to conduct yourself when there are potential COI issues. Your false dichotomy routine of either I support your antics or I support Jytdog's views on COI policy don't work on me. Let the closer determine how my vote goes, not your personal opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban as stated by Ricky81682 and per MarnetteD. Having read through this, really quite lengthy, thread, it's obvious that Elvey just doesn't know when to stop. The explosion at Johnuniq for an easy to make miscount and the subsequent histrionics at GWH's talk page is evidence enough that Elvey needs to take a step back, whether it be voluntary or imposed. Blackmane (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. I have, i think, read the whole of this, and followed it down several rabbit holes, and i cannot see any further editing by Elvey on the topic of COI ending well until he takes the time to understand all that he has been told. Honestly, i feel he's lucky to be getting off this lightly, as some of his actions (to my mind) clearly reach extremely poor levels and he's been flirting with a longer-term block. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support- I don't really see any alternative at this point. This user simply won't drop the stick on his own and also seems to have suffered a near-fatal overdose of IDHT. Reyk _YO! 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I see all kinds of red flags in Elvey's combative, "everyone else is at fault" mentality here; even after a warning it took a block to force them to stop disrupting this thread with their repetitive wikilawyering about vote process. Elvey's counter-proposed solution is more "you guys are wrong but I'll go along with it" rather than owning that they are the one that is wrong, as many users above have strained to explain. None of that points to a user who will drop the stick, so I fully support a topic ban from the subject of COI which they don't understand/refuse to accept. Furthermore, clear evidence has been presented that Elvey followed Jytdog to several articles expressly to WP:HOUND them, so I support the suggested one-way interaction ban as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. My patience is certainly exhausted, thanks to WP:IDHT here in addition to issues already noted above. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but with qualification. I can't see any real progress here and while I think there are wider issues around COI I can see that Elvey is his/her own worse enemy. If Elvey will accept a voluntary withdrawal from direct editing but with the right to raise concerns with a third party editor for review then that might work. If that is not OK then I would support a three month topic ban ----Snowded ^TALK 21:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Clearly there are broader issues here with regard to Elvey becoming needlessly combative and retreating into IDHT stances in any area where their behaviour has come into question, but what concerns me most are the original (and to my mind, substantiated) claims of hounding which set the discussion off in the first place. I'm sure plenty of people can relate to Elvey's no-love-lost disposition towards pharmaceutical reps, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a tool for editor's personal political crusades. These comments were clearly off-topic, hostile, and in no way involved with or relevant to the improvement of the project. I echo the sentiments of Ricky81682 and others that Elvey's has used COI and other policy principles as cover to harass or otherwise adopt needlessly adversarial and disruptive behaviours with regard to other editors on issues to which said policies do not really apply. And given their resistance to accepting a clear consensus of their fellow editors here that this and other of their behaviours are inappropriate, I think we can trust they will not re-examine their behaviour with regard to the relevant policies of their own accord, so they ought to be removed from the areas in which they cannot conform to community expectations. Frankly, I'd have proposed an indefinite TBAN with a chance to appeal after a year, or even a block, but we can hope the current measure will suffice. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Now that I took the time to read this endless ANI. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Vote results

Proposal evaluations must not be mere !vote counts, but rather argument evaluations. So I asked for a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence. You want to ban me just the same, do so based on something I can learn from. Cuz right now, what I'm hearing is that the policies and guidelines be damned; you can respect them and still get banned. Anyone willing to work with me to understand what I've done wrong, please say so here. Someone I can run some edits by before making them could work well. Johnuniq provided such a reason for his !vote. (It was based on blatantly false evidence, yes, but at least he offered a non-circular reason, which no one else has.)

I might as well shut up now and take my beating or retire after some shady user closes this double jeopardy !vote, and not count the votes of User:Snowded or User: GoodDay, or make note of the changes I agreed to. I've said enough. Not going to change any minds no matter how valid my defence. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Simple question which you will sidestep I'm sure but how is this in any way useful in terms of fighting COI on Wikipedia? It looks like nothing more than you figuring out someone's COI and then using it to attack the entity you want to attack. You aren't Perry Masoning anyone there, just going for a cheap shot. Your goal seems to be finding problems with editors (COI being the convenient tool of the moment but civility is always a backup) so that you can lord it over people which is more destructive than any COI issues we could ever have. It's a grudge mentality that's the problem not your personal beliefs about policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, somewhere in the middle of User talk:Elvey (Elvey refactored the page but these are the relevant edits) is a response to this. Even though this was brought up at the start of this I think, the response there reiterates my concern that Elvey treats COI issues as a tool to take advantage of, which is far from our purposes. We are not WikiNews and we are not looking for another Edward R. Murrow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Elvey blocked for 31 hrs for ongoing disruption of this ANI discussion

I warned Elvey on his talk page ( [15] ) to stop disrupting the ANI discussion regarding his sanction as he had been. He wall-of-texted my talk page in response (acceptable) and continued here (not acceptable). I have blocked him for 31 hrs. I am concerned about a wider NOTHERE question after this string of behavior. I am not doing anything more than the 31 hr block, reporting that here, and noting my wider concern. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We're at a WP:ROPE crossroads here. Let's see where this goes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Before this gets archived...

It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would close and enact the proposal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we get someone to close this and enact the sanction?--Adam in MO Talk 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Update

Update - two of them, both at Snowded's page:

• Where's Elvey? He declared here that he saw no more point in continuing to discuss things here and took up Snowded's offer to review COI matters about which he has concerns.
• The effort to continue HOUNDING me has continued, now by proxy, for pete's sake, here also at Snowded's talk page (there is no COI stuff at Crop desiccation; Elvey had just followed me there in his hounding). There is no dropping of the stick.Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

and so, after I pointed out this further effort to hound me, Elvey deleted that thread (including others' comments), with an edit note that misrepresents why he went to that page and what the follow up was all about, which is stirring up stale, settled stuff on that page.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a repeated habit: saying something and then blanking it and being accusational when people pull up old edits. Direct communication is more helpful than running around commenting and deleting the comments as if they should be erased from everyone's minds to avoid confrontation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

before someone jumps in here to accuse me, I also sometimes write hastily things I subsequently regret and remove them, or later redact them, all per WP:REDACT - usually with an acknowledgement that the original was wrong in some way and if necessary an apology. What Elvey has been doing here is different from that. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation‎

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

---

I call to your attention what I believe to be prima facie violations of WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ... by Xenophrenic at Talk:Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation. Examples of these WP:TE violations:

1) In response to: "Justify including in the article information from a source that the source believes is absurd or manifestly untrue." You have not answered the question. How do you justify you [sic.] edit?" Xenophrenic continues to not address the issue of "absurd or manifestly untrue".

2) There are a number of good-faith questions that I have asked that Xenophrenic has simply ignored; see the talk page. If you'd like I'll list them; let me know if you'd like me to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation from an uninvolved editor. I noticed that Xenophrenic responded to several issues that you raised.

• First, if you are going to ask a question, do so. That involves an interrogatory, not a declarative sentence.
• Second, your statements seem to be directive, as in "Justify," "hereinbelow provide," etc.
• Third, you are not entitled to an answer.
• Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING.
• Finally, you may want to work on your communication style. GregJackP Boomer! 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: just above you assert "Third, you are not entitled to an answer." How do you reconcile this assertion with the Wikipedia policy described in WP:TE#One who ignores or refuses to answer ...?

Deicas (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TE is not a policy, it is an essay. You are not entitled to an answer. No one elected you wikigod, nor is there any policy that states you are entitled to an answer. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: I call to your attention, from WP:TE, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.". Note, above, "How do you justify you [sic.] edit?". How do you explain the failure of Xenophrenic to answer this question, which lies at the crux of the disputed edit, without seeing a violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?

Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: with regard to your comments above "Fourth, this appears to be WP:WIKILAWYERING" and "No one elected you wikigod". Would you please either strike these comments out or justify your violation of your Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith obligation?

Deicas (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline. It is what someone thinks. No more, no less.

The cites you are making above are perfect examples of wikilawyering. After you requested I strike, I looked at your edit history, and since 2004 in your 450 edits, you have been repeatedly warned about wikilawyering. It's a pattern of behavior, and you are exhibiting it here, again. Please stop doing so.

In any event, you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic, nor to a further answer from me. GregJackP Boomer! 01:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: With regard to your "WP:TE is an essay. It is not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline", above: in retrospect I should have cited WP:DR which *is* policy. Specificity: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". I have difficulty reconciling this policy with your statement above: "... you are not entitled to an answer from Xenophrenic ..."? Would you please expand on your reasoning?

Deicas (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a routine content dispute, acerbated by: (a) a very minor edit war or slightly aggressive BRD-ing, and (b) some difficulty reconciling communications styles between Xenophrenic, who describes themselves as "shy" about talk page comments, and Deicas, who is fairly voluminous, pointed, and slightly odd in their talk page discussion style. All in good faith no doubt, each of us has our unique voice, it just looks like people need a little extra effort to try to communicate. It's only going to become a behavior issue if people make it one, otherwise that's what talk pages are for. Although perhaps a content issue there are some significant BLP and NPOV policy issues here because we have a prominent professor who claimed (falsely it appears) to be Native American and who was fired for academic misconduct, promoting or making up untrue but widely believed historical claims that American military committed acts of genocide by spreading small pox blankets among indigenous villages. The professor is still alive and still has defenders, so this topic can get quite heated. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Even the above statement can raise discussion. I'm no fan of the wannabe, but I would state that he was "promoting or making up untrue using unsupported, but widely believed historical claims. . . ." There are some others who have published along the same lines, and it is a matter of faith among the tribes (see Denzin). I don't think it is an ANI issue. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the weirdness of Wikipedia's PC policies, rule #1 about fight club history is that you can't discuss fight club history. Some person, rightly upset over historical events that could justifiably be called a genocide, starts making stuff up including that he is a descendent of the victims. Meanwhile, we editors have to tiptoe around the facts because of obscure policies that affect even our ability to discuss policy amongst ourselves. So we cannot describe people as frauds or impostors, even in the rather interesting space of — what do they call this now? — trans-racialism. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that he is a fraud who took an honorary membership and went way too far with it. The problem is that there was genocide of the American Indian, but since that was one of his research areas, any proposal or position that he ever advocated is immediately attacked without ever going to the actual merits of the argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic has repeatedly included information in the article deriving from Guenter Lewy's writing (ie. [16]) that Lewy describes as non-creditable (coming from a source that "manifestly does not suggest that the U.S. Army distributed infected blankets"). So I ask User:Xenophrenic why he's including information from Lewy that Lewy believes is not creditable. And I get no explanation. And I ask variations of the question. And spend more time. And I get no explanation. If I had a putative explanation for including non-creditable information then the content dispute is addressable. Absent an explanation then there is no content inclusion reason to discuss. Hence, I view this as a behavioural question. If as, Wikidemon suggests, this should be viewed as a NPOV issue then I'll happily agree.

Deicas (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Another way, resolving this issue as a content dispute, would be for user:Xenophrenic to provide a citation to Stiffarm and Lane for the claim that Lewy finds so objectionable. Then the portion of the article under dispute would look something like: "Stiffarm and Lane assert X [citation to Stiffarm and Lane]. Lewy views X as not plausible because ... [citation to Lewy]".

Deicas (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's content, not behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is content, not behavior, but it may be a way to end the current dispute. Isn't that what we're striving for?

Deicas (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic just removed a portion of text with citations [[17]] providing as the reason for the removal "(continued removal of Lewy assertion pending Talk resolution, as half of it was left in the article.)". The issue in dispute on the talk page is one, of multiple, uses of one of the deleted citations? How is this not disruptive editing? Deicas (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Would someone *please* persuade User:Xenophrenic to stop his disruptive editing? Please?

Deicas (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in a proposal that, if accepted, would resolve the behavior issue, close this AN/I, and roll the dispute back to a content dispute?

Deicas (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Stalled AN/I: User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

Would an uninvolved administrator(s) please look at User:Xenophrenic's WP:TE at Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation? This AN/I seems to be making no progress. Note that the article on which the disputed behaviour is occurring is flagged as "The subject of this article is controversial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite a stall but things seem to be gong in the wrong direction. Not a full scale edit war, but both editors in question are now at about 2RR in the last 24 hours or so. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I second User:Wikidemon's suggestion to "Please keep discussion in one place". I suggest that the disputed article section be rolled-back to the start of this dispute and protected until this AN/I is resolved.

Deicas (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I noted that Deicas reverted Xenophrenic's edits to his preferred version, Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,([18], noting that Wikidemon was participating in discussions) and then Deicas refused to further discuss the content issue until the ANI was resolved ([19], because Xenophrenic did not "comply" with the demand of Deicas), which is, in my view, disruptive on the part of Deicas. ANI is for behavior problems, not content disputes. Either this should go back to the article talk page, or we should WP:BOOMERANG Deicas for his bad faith in resolving the content dispute. This seems to clearly be an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING, which he has been warned for on multiple occasions. [20], [21], where he was topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article for similar behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 09:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As User:GregJackP has allowed editing of the article section to occur concurrently with resolution of this AN/I the situation has become very confusing and the BRD cycle is not being performed.

User:GregJackP: You you assert [[22]] "Xenophrenic answered Deicas's question on the talk page,([[23]]". I've asked a number of questions: which *specific* question do you believe Xenophrenic meaningfully answered? What text from Xenophrenic talk page edit do you believe is the meaning answer? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: I observe that you have, yet again accused[[24]] me of WP:WIKILAWYERING. You've done this before and said that my citing of Wikipedia policy was an act of WP:WIKILAWYERING and refused further clarification. Would you please cite the policy or guideline that deprecates the citing of policy or guidelines? Your accusation is also contrary to theWP:WIKILAWYERING essay:

Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term.

Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GregJackP: You say I "*refused* to further discuss the content issue until the AN/I was resolved" this is not true. I engaged in wishful thinking that this dispute could be resolved in an orderly manner in a single location. So much for that wish. You accuse me of making a "demand". All I've done propose solutions that have been ignored. Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I also note the "the phrase 'You are wikilawyering' is an insult" and you also accuse me of "bad faith in resolving the content dispute". BAD FAITH? I'm just trying to persuade User:Xenophrenic to abide by the BRD cycle, thus avoiding the current chaos, and to meaningfully respond to questions about his edits and reversions [citations of my requests available on request]. How are these actions evidence of bad faith? Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[User:GregJackP]: I've asked you a number of meaningful questions above. I hope that you won't again reply "In any event, you are not entitled to ... a further answer from me. "

Deicas (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit is an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING. I also linked to places where you have been warned about it in the past, and noted that you were topic-banned from the Paul Krugman article. Those diffs and links are called evidence, at least in the wiki-sense. Keep up this nonsense and I'll propose another topic-ban. Your call. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I observe you you continue to accuse me of WP:WIKILAWYERING yet you still refuse to cite the specific text that you believe constitues the offense. Careful reasoning isn't WP:WIKILAWYERING! Surely you're not claiming that every word in edit is WP:WIKILAWYERING? Perhaps you be so kind as to point out *specific* example(s) of "violating [a policy or guideline's] spirit or underlying principles" or "pettifogging"? Why have you allowed a simple AN/I matter that could have been resolved with a brief admonition to Xenophrenic to "meet his obligations under WP:DR"; reverting the article to the start of the dispute and; starting the BRD process; to become an opportunity to heap invective on me?

Deicas (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I provided the links, this is a habit of yours that you may want to break. I've noted that you have tried to restart the talk page discussion that you arbitrarily ended, why don't you see if that doesn't take care of the content issue? I really don't think that you want to pursue sanctions here, the last time didn't end so well for you. GregJackP Boomer! 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[[User talk:GregJackP | GregJackP]: I continue to seek sanctions. What needs to be done to resolve this matter? Please advise. I note you are advocating the deletion of the article over which this editing conduct AN/I is based. I note that you are overtly sympathetic ("This user knows the Black Hills were illegally stolen from the Sioux ..." on your user page) to the cause for which Ward Churchill advocated and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation brought discredit upon. Are you indeed an "uninvolved administrator"?

Deicas (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Which "talk page discussion that you arbitrarily ended" did I end? How could I "end" a talk page discussion?

Deicas (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that Xenophrenic is back to his WP:DR violations, by failing to provide requested editing reasoning, at the talk page. What is necessary to get this AN/I resolved and Xenophrenic's conduct corrected? Deicas (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see this talk page section and these two diffs [25] and [26] for more examples of Xenophrenic's problematic editing. Deicas (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD

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

---

HughD for violation of guidelines on publicizing a RfC, namely [and excessive cross-posting] and vote stacking. HughD opened a RfC to insert information into the article Americans for Prosperity.[[27]] This RfC was opened on July 9th and notifications were place in the following locations:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[28]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[[29]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[30]]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[31]]

The initial posting may be WP:VOTESTACK because it was not posted to all the categories associated with the article and did include a category that would likely be inclined to support HughD's POV on the topic. The RfC should have also been posted in WikiProject Conservatism (a category listed with the article). The inclusion of Political activities of the Koch brothers may be seen as trying to stack the deck. HughD did not correct the failure to post the Project Conservatism noticeboard even after being warned.[[32]] - Note, warning dated July 27th

Later that day HughD added the following additional RfC notifications:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[33]]
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[34]]
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[35]]

Seven RfC (eight including a notice on the RfC noticeboard) seems more than sufficient.

As of July 17th HughD's proposal did not have a clear consensus for inclusion. Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times. This includes adding new information which could be seen as biasing as well as targeting talk pages or noticeboards which he feels may be sympathetic to his POV while avoiding pages/boards that would likely oppose his view.

Postings at new locations:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[36]]

Bumps to original postings:

• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[37]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[38]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[39]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[40]]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[41]]

New postings at locations of previous postings:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[42]]
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (second new post) [[43]]
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[44]]
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [[45]]
• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (Original post was July 16th, 8 days prior) [[46]]
• Talk:Citizens United v. FEC (This is a location that may find a sympathetic ear to HughD's POV thus is probably canvasing in addition to cross posting and spamming) [[47]]

Bumps after being warned of excessive posting/canvasing (Bumps/posts on July 30th or later)

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard [[48]]
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [[49]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations [[50]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics [[51]]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States [[52]]
• Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers [[53]]
• Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [[54]]
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (this is actually yet another new post) [[55]]
• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [[56]]

User was warned of excessive posting/canvasing HughD was warned on his talk page prior to making the July 30th updates.[[57]] The user had been previously warned in conversation by a number of editors. [[58]], [[59]], [[60]], [[61]] Additionally Hugh has asked that others be aware of Wikipedia policies on canvassing.[[62]] Thus he is unlikely to be ignorant of the guidelines.

HughD has a history of disruptive editing on this and related topics and has 3 recent blocks (June 23rd, June 10th, April 10th). The most recent two are for edits related to this article [[63]]

This is an editor who should know better but is unwilling to work within the rules to get the changes he thinks are best. I'm posting this ANI as an outside editor who has replied to the RfC in question but has never edited on the subject.

HughD has been notified of this ANI. A notification will also be added to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - For additional context, folks might want to check out this other recent ANI complaint against HughD (not much came of it), and Hugh's recent AE filing against Arthur Rubin (ditto). This all relates to a broader and rather ugly dispute over the content of Americans for Prosperity that's been going on for some time. As someone who's been involved in this debate, I'll just say the same thing I said when this came up before; as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial statement of reported editor All publicizing of the request for comment Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is conformant with WP:RFC "Publicizing an RfC", WP:Discussion notices "Best practices", and WP:CANVASS.

WP:RFC reminds us that WP:CANVASS "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." WP:VOTESTACKING clearly prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. Please note that the option of notifying WP:CONSERVATISM was discussed at article talk five days ago 27 July 2015 and following, please see. Please note that the reporting user has filed an ANI report of canvassing, but has not themselves notified WP:CONSERVATISM. Please note that no editor has notified WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. If the consensus is that notification to WP:CONSERVATISM is conformant, and an editor was willing to place the notification, I would support a reasonable extension to the RfC period to allow additional time for comments from the participants in WP:CONSERVATISM.

"Bumps" WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice.

WP:RFC authorizes publicizing an RfC at the "talk pages of closely related articles or policies." Political activities of the Koch brothers and Citizens United v. FEC are closely related to Americans for Prosperity, as evidenced by the "See Also" section, please see. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note 19:24, 31 July 2015 my good colleague User:Capitalismojo, on record in the Survey section of the RfC, deleted Citizens United v. FEC from Americans_for_Prosperity#See_also. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindly decline this report. An important aspect of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds is to solicit community-wide input regarding a local consensus regarding a local interpretation of our neutrality pillar. Your comments at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds are welcome by most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any canvasing, canvasing is by definition non neutral. What I saw was a neutrally worded message on multiple forums. I agree that this complaint needs to be dismissed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the canvasing links at the top of the ANI. There are two issues. The first, is that HughD has been selective in where he has posted his RfCs. The much bigger issue is spamming and cross posting. The excessive number of posts is spamming and against guidelines listed in the WP:CAN. Springee (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to say that I support the right of HughD to post wherever and whenever he wants, just as I support the right of other editors to do so. "The solution to the problems caused by freedom of speech is more freedom of speech." This complaint should be dismissed post haste. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Any claim that the canvassing is "neutral" requires failure to understand basic English. Also, the postings should not contain the arguments for inclusion without including arguments against inclusion. Hugh's claim that reporting the RfC to WikiProject Conservatism would balance the canvassing is failed and irrelevant, unless Hugh is banned from the project and is unable to make the announcement. It's failed because the RfC has been going on with the unbalanced announcements for over two weeks, and irrelevant because it doesn't excuse Hugh's actions.

This is more appropriate on the discussion page of the RfC, but the only way the RfC could be perceived as not being hopelessly biased is for it to be closed, restarted with neutral wording, advertised ONLY to the projects, not the noticeboards or irrelevant talk pages, and the the current participants NOT specifically notified of the restart. I'd be willing to work with Hugh on neutral wording if he would agree not to make his non-neutral wording other than in the actual RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me Arthur, but I'm not seeing where Hugh made an "argument" for inclusion in any of the diffs provided above. What are you referring to specifically? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at noticeboards. On 9 July, after WP:NPOV was notified, you commented: "This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, especially since it's already been brought up on the reliable sources board, and consensus leaned against." May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that RfC notifications are limited to one and only one noticeboard? May I respectfully ask, is it your interpretation of WP:CANVASS, that an early local consensus at one venue, however weak, whichever direction, limits RfC notification at other venues? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:NPOV setting a time for the discussion to end. On 31 July you deleted an update to the RfC notice on WP:ORN setting a time for the discussion to end. The RfC concerns a content issue at at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an update to an RfC notice setting an end date for a discussion of a content issue at a TPM article, was the type of edits our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: on 24 July you deleted, and on 31 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete, an update to an RfC notice on WP:RSN, prior to the expiration of the RfC comment period. May I respectfully ask, do you believe deleting from a noticeboard, an RfC notice regarding a content issue at a TPM article, is in the spirit of what our community had in mind when our Arbitration Committee relaxed your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Arthur Rubin: WP:RFC says "one or more" and specifically authorizes notification of RfCs at the talk pages of closely related articles. On 27 July you used OneClickArchiver to delete an RfC notice regarding a content dispute at Americans for Prosperity, a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement related article, from Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, another, closely-related TPM article. May I respectfully ask, how in your mind do you reconcile this deletion with the spirit if not the letter of our Arbitration Committee's relaxation of your topic ban? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a canvassing or a votestacking issue. I am seeing a lot of effort to bring more outside views into a fairly obscure topic area, which is beneficial. More people being involved in the RfC should result in a more representative consensus. If some interested wikiprojects were not notified, that's easily rectified. If HughD were selectively notifying individual editors or wording the notifications in a partisan manner, then I would conclude otherwise.- MrX 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not well-versed in what is or isn't canvassing/campaigning, but if consensus here ends up being that this isn't a case of canvassing or votestacking by Hugh, then perhaps other editors' repeated repeated refactoring of Hugh's talk page posts to remove the RFC notices bears scrutiny: [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. These editors have been very aggressive about removing Hugh's posts and have [78] accused him of edit warring for trying to restore his own talk page posts since this thread was opened. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm quite curious why Hugh posted the RFC notice multiple times on three of four related WikiProject pages (Organizations, United States, and Politics) while never posting the notice to WikiProject Conservatism. This seems like selective posting to me. When you couple this with the multiple postings to Citizens United v. FEC (the posting of the RFC notice to this page has been reverted by three different editors, and restored by Hugh four times), it looks rather odd to me. Hugh, could you explain your thinking behind not notifying WikiProject Conservatism? Perhaps if you posted the RFC notice there, it would help to clear up this matter. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  I just notified WikiProject Conservatism. Are there any others that should be notified?- MrX 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  Posting to WikiProject Conservatism can be seen as canvassing. It clearly has a conservative bias while the other projects connected to the page are seemingly neutral. Even on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, it says "please note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project, and may be regarded as a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline." The purpose of posting a notice there is to recruit people from a group with a conservative bias for input on a RFC and doesn't merely seek assistance in how to approach a discussion or seek editing help. Just because it's labeled as a project, doesn't mean it gets excused from canvassing efforts. Clearly, if there was an explicitly liberal project that Hugh posted to, while ignoring the conservative project, then these concerns would have merit.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Champaign Supernova: How long should we extend the comment period to accommodate full participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Commenting user @Champaign Supernova: you expressed concern regarding the notice of the RfC to WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. We will hold off on the close of the RfC until we hear from you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that I never suggested extending the comment period in order to hear input from members of WikiProject Conservatism, but rather asked you why you never notified that project (you never answered my question, or notified that project), I find your question about how long I would extend the comment period odd. I've never advocated extending it. And neither you or I have any control over when it the comment period closes, since we are both involved parties and can't close it ourselves. Our opinions on when it should close don't really matter at all. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You can find my answer in my "initial statement" above, following "WP:RFC reminds us...", sorry you missed it. As per WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, we can extend with consensus. I understand you do not favor extending Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Sorry you find my question odd, I mistakenly thought you were concerned about participation in Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you've never given a reason why you conspicuously failed to notify WikiProject Conservatism, I can only assume it was because you were worried that if you did, it might entice editors to come along who disagreed with your POV. But I'm sure you wouldn't intentionally create a biased RFC process, so I'll just patiently await your answer as to why you didn't notify all of the relevant page's WikiProjects. Please help us correct the unfortunate assumption that you failed to notify this WikiProject because of bias. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having such trouble finding my answer of 31 July above in my "initial statement", following "WP:RFC reminds us...". At the risk of repeating myself, I will copy the answer here for your convenience:

WP:RFC reminds us that WP:CANVASS "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." WP:VOTESTACKING clearly prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view.

I hope this helps answer your question. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• As an aside, should this ANI report be advertised on all the boards where the RfC was advertised? It would be helpful to get the opinion of editors who thought the announcement inappropiate but didn't know where to complain. I'm not going to do it without consensus, because it borders on spamming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  thumb|left|Yes Arthur, that sounds like a great idea!

• - MrX 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note well in considering my good colleague's suggestion above, to further publicize this ANI filing "on all the boards where the RfC was advertised", that no editor not previously involved in the talk page of Americans for Prosperity, none of the "regulars" at any Wiki Project talk page or notice board where this RfC has been publicized, has commented regarding so-called "excessive cross-posting", let alone deleting talk page comments and notice board postings. The only editors raising issues with the publicizing of this RfC are editors on record in the Survey section of the RfC, and also on record on one particular side of the RfC question. Understand clearly this is not an ANI complaint filed by annoyed notice board or Wiki Project participants. The regulars at the notice boards and Wiki Project talk pages managed to assume good faith. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Respectfully request quick close of this ANI filing, by an administrator please, since the target page Americans for Prosperity is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any real evidence of RfC canvassing. It seems clear that when Hugh gets into a disagreement about whether something is or is not WP:SYNTH, for example, he posts an announcement to a noticeboard with a lot of editors who are familiar with that policy. That isn't canvassing. I personally ended up commenting on the RfC in question based upon seeing one of his announcements on a notice board, and my considered opinion is that what Hugh is trying to accomplish violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (some commenters agree with me on this and some disagree, which is why we have RfCs), so any alleged canvassing attempts failed in that respect. I do think that more admins should keep an eye on anything related to the Koch brothers and apply discretionary sanctions as needed. I am seeing a lot of attempts to whitewash or blackwash the Koch brothers rather than treating the topic in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's the third time the same RfC has failed to gain consensus. He's not getting the answer that he wants so he keeps trying to roll a bigger ball up a bigger hill. Heck, we even had the pre-RfC RfC for wording since it failed the previous time. Please make it stop. It's a long election season and starting the RfC dogpile on Koch brothers stuff now is just going to cause problems and entrenched positions later. --DHeyward (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. A topic ban for Hugh on Koch-related articles would be too harsh. Perhaps a six-month topic ban on for Hugh on posting new Koch-related RfCs? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, would you please provide links for the two previous RfCs. I can't seem to find them. Thanks.- MrX 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• A short or medium term topic ban would be an appropriate solution in this case. HughD has shown "polite hostility" towards editor who don't agree with him while praising those who do. He also has 2 recent bans related to this article. A Koch family and related topics ban would allow him to work on other projects (and he seems to contribute in many cases) while avoiding what is clearly a family he wishes to blackwash. If others feel his proposed changes are worth while they may discuss and make them.Springee (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If Hugh had held the opposite POV, this would have been deemed canvassing and he would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The apparent bias on Wikipedia is absurd. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• What HughD is avoiding discussing is the primary complaint. The rules tell editors to avoid [and excessive cross-posting]. 29 posts as of the time of this ANI and he has since done a new round of bumps. Clearly he is unhappy with the results of his RfC and is now using spamming in hopes of getting people who will agree with him rather than accepting that his view, part of a clear blackwashing attempt, didn't get consensus. If over 30 posts isn't excessive what is? Why have the rule?Springee (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee, thank you for your question. Excessive in this context is indiscriminate and/or disruptive, please see WP:CANVASS. May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant commenting in objection to a notice or deleting a notice? Thank you in advance for your reply to this important question highly relevant to this report. Hugh (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved non admin) I see no violation of canvassing and the diffs presented here seem to follow the advice on WP:RFC. The number of them leaves some concern, but original posts and the bumps seem neutral and only point out the RFC is applicable to the place posted. AlbinoFerret 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines. Given the editors other behaviors including edit warring on this topic and specifically telling others to follow the RfC rules I don't believe he should be given a pass here. I do think that his was also trying to stack votes by publishing his notices selectively (avoiding the Conservative Project page despite the fact that it is listed as a page related to this project). However, I would consider that minor were it not for the obvious excessive postings (something the guidelines clearly state should not be done).Springee (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it was excessive, and I do not see a violation of the RFC guidelines. They would be a problem if they were not neutral. As pointed out above, not notifying the Conservative Project can be considered within the RFC guidelines as they have, by the projects own admission, a bias. AlbinoFerret 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How many is excessive? His notice was neutral but his posting locations were not (though not radically off). The Conservative one should have been notified as the page in question cites it as a related project. Other pages such as Citizens United could only be seen as trying to find a favorable audience when his original postings failed to get the support he hoped for. Why post there if his intent wasn't vote stacking? I could see over looking the less that 100% clean notifications but adding to the list and reposing in old one when it was clear that things weren't going his way was a clear violation of the spamming part of the canvasing rules. Springee (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please produce a non neutral posting location. So far all I see are wikiprojects, noticeboards and the pump. All neutral locations. In fact he has avoided a non neutral location in the Conservative wikiproject. AlbinoFerret 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:AlbinoFerret, I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC [79] was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page). I found it odd to not notify one of the WikiProjects (Conservatism) while choosing to notify this seemingly arbitrarily selected page (Citizens United V. FEC). I also found it troubling that Hugh continually reverted the RFC notice on that talk page after three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it as an example of canvassing. Diffs of reverts: [80], [81], [82], [83]. The RFC was certainly in enough places, so the four reverts on a seemingly unrelated page where three editors disputed the edit seems like a case of WP:IDHT. No rationale for choosing to post on the Citizen United page was ever given on that page or the AFP page. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, you wrote "I believe posting the RFC at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC was non-neutral, as that page's connection to AFP is unclear (the page isn't wiki-linked or otherwise mentioned on the AFP page" Citizens United v. FEC was included in the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity, and as such was specifically authorized for publicizing at WP:RFC as a "closely related article," that is, until it was deleted yesterday. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) How would you characterize the non-neutral bias you claim among the participants at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC that you claim was sought out by posting an RfC notice there? Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova I'm sorry you do not believe Citizens United v. FEC is closely related to Americans for Prosperity. I did not add Citizens United v. FEC to the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity.

1. 00:37, 8 May 2015 Citizens United v. FEC added to the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity by BeenAroundAWhile
2. 19:24, 31 July 2015 Citizens United v. FEC deleted from the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity by Capitalismojo, a few hours after the filing of this ANI report

Reporting user @Springee: you wrote "The Conservative one should have been notified..." There is no deadline. May I respectfully ask, how long should we extend the comment period of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds to accommodate full participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM? Thank you for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user @Springee: you expressed concern regarding the notice of the RfC to WP:CONSERVATISM. There is no deadline. We will hold off on the close of the RfC until we hear from you. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if your basis for posting RFC comments to pages was that the pages were included in the "See Also" section, why didn't you post to Mark Block, which is also in the "See Also" section? If you're picking and choosing which pages to post to from among similar pages (i.e., pages in the "See Also" section), it's going to look like canvassing unless you have a specific, shared rationale for why you chose the pages you did. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request quick administrative close of this report with no action as the arguments get increasingly desperate. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova, you wrote "...three different editors, including myself, attempted to remove it..." Thank you for acknowledging your role in deleting perfectly valid RfC notices, but you might have gone on to specify that the other two editors were our good colleague Arthur Rubin and a sympathetic IP. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay, more dripping condescension. Helpful. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

All noticeboards associated with the article should be notified. Conversely why notify ones that are not? Why notify the Citizens United talk page? Why not notify all up front rather than casting a wider net (and again avoiding all boards associated with the article in question) when it was clear that HughD's attempt to blackwash was failing? Regardless, if it were just the location of notices I would say is was only a bit biased. It was the volume that I think is the issue. This is especially true since the volume went up after it was clear he was not getting the consensus he wanted. The canvasing guidelines make it clear that notification should be limited in number.[[84]]Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, where does "canvasing guidelines make it clear that notification should be limited in number"? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Conservative one should have been notified" If you believed WP:CONSERVATISM needed to be notified, why didn't you? Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, you asked "How many is excessive?" Our behavioral guideline WP:CANVASSING at "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" makes no mention of quantity, but does mention "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." If you would like to pursue an answer to your question, kindly take your question to the appropriate policy talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, you wrote "the number is excessive and that is a violation of the RfC posting guidelines." Can you please be more specific about the specific policy or guideline you are alleging was violated? WP:RFC says "one or more." If you believe WP:RFC should include a maximum number of notices, please take your concern to the policy talk page. All the venues in which this RfC was publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." Which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, the policy in question is noted in the opening of this ANI. Springee (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

May I please ask again, which notice was in your mind indiscriminate? Can you please provide an example of what you believe to be disruptive publicizing, such as perhaps a notice board administrator or project participant objecting to a notice? Hugh (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you may ask. You can also read above. Springee (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I took your suggestion and re-read the above. I'm sorry, but I cannot find an instance of indiscriminate notification. All of the venues in which the RfC was notified are specifically authorized by WP:RFC. All of the notifications discriminate in their venues between those venues which are specifically authorized by WP:RFC and those that are not, so they seem discriminate to me. What do you think? Also, I cannot find an example of disruptive notification. I cannot find an example of anyone at any of the venues objecting, through edit summary or comment, I mean of course other than those already on record as opposed back at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please help. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administrator: The guidelines clearly state that excessive notifications (in number and/or location) are a type of spamming. How do we judge when the number or locations are spamming? That seems to be the heart of the issue here. HughD's posts were also not neutral in location (though how not neutral is up for debate) but I would like to start with the question of judging excess. Springee (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions. I'm sure someone at one of those pages could help you with your question. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The above is an example of the bad faith behavior HughD has shown on the article talk page. The question I asked above is the core of this topic. The number of editors who have said HughD's actions in regard to this RfC means that it was handled in a disruptive way. Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the number of editors who have said the notification of this RfC was disruptive? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user Springee, a problem with excessive RfC notices sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, wouldn't you expect at least one noticeboard regular or one WikiProject participant to comment in objection to the RfC notice, or to delete the RfC notice with a terse edit summary? How about anyone that is not on record in the Survey section of the RfC in opposition to the RfC question? Hugh (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with you on the content dispute but I also think this may have been improper canvassing. This concern was raised by a large number of editors in good faith and you have stonewalled all of them. Your inability to listen and accept criticism has proven be highly disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please be more specific about the publicity-related policy or guideline which was improperly violated? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC) This concern was raised by a very few editors, all on record in the Survey section of the RfC as opposed to Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, and none from noticeboards or project talk pages. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for Administration As I asked above, several editors felt that the notifications for this RfC were excessive in number and placed to appeal to a more sympathetic audience when it was clear the RfC was not going in HughD's favor. What defines excessive in this case?Springee (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user @Springee:, may I ask, specifically what is the specific location where a "more sympathetic audience" was sought through an RfC notice? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request quick close with no action. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment "Since that time HughD has published or bumped previous RfC 20 additional times." After spending the entire morning trying to wrap my brain around this ANI - this seems to be the core argument of the original poster. No matter what attempts are being made to poke holes in his original argument (Hugh is INCREDIBLE at this, I will give him that) It needs to be determined whether or not 20+ comments is excessive. WHERE he placed the comments seems irrelevant, per BeenAroundAwhile's comment above. Now, back to the ACTUAL argument at hand. How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive? What has been deemed "excessive" in the past, and why? What hasn't, and why? Either it is excessive, or it isn't, that's it. I also think user:Fyddlestix hit the nail on the head here when he said "as disruptive as HughD's behavior may have been, the NPOV problem that he's been trying to correct is a very obvious and very real one, and he's been up against an awful lot of battleground behavior and IDHT from other editors in this dispute. Not saying that excuses any disruption he may have caused, but I do think that the conduct of parties on both sides of this dispute should be scrutinized carefully by un-involved admins." We have been spinning our wheels for a month now - someone, ANYONE, please help! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

One month is the default comment period for an RFC, please see WP:RFC. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds will most likely close Thursday 6 August. There is no deadline and we can extend it if so desired in order to accommodate increased participation from our colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM and others. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Comatmebro: you asked, "How can we determine what is, and isn't excessive?" Thank you for your question. We can determine what is and is not excessive by referencing policy and guideline. WP:RFC says "one or more." All the venues in which Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds were publicized are explicitly authorized at WP:RfC, such as notice boards, associated project talk pages, or closely related article talk pages. WP:Discussion notices "Best practices" states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and that "setting a time for the discussion to end" is a best practice. Our behavioural guideline WP:CANVAS defines excessive as "indiscriminate" and "disruptive." We should expect that a necessary precondition of a problem with excessive RfC notices, sufficiently severe as to warrant an ANI filing, would involve several noticeboard regulars, WikiProject participants, or article talk page contributors, commenting in objection to the RfC notice, or deleting the RfC notice with a terse edit summary, not just those on record in opposition to the RfC question. I hope this helps answer your question. If not, may I respectfully direct you to WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions, where I'm sure someone could clarify further. Thank you again for your question. Hugh (talk)

I seriously doubt that he was looking for an answer as to how much crossposting is excessive from from the person accused of excessive crossposting. Equally likely to be ignored is the person accused of excessive crossposting requesting that the ANI case be closed with no action. Perhaps you have a slight bias when it comes to these particular questions? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All I was looking for was a number of posts that could be deemed excessive...10 posts? 15 posts? 100 MILLION POSTS?! But, I do appreciate your clarification, Hugh. Honestly, I am so over arguing with you on all of this - might just have to buy you a beer (or a barnstar) on the 6th to celebrate AN outcome, whatever that outcome may be :). Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Does look like an attempt to stack votes, but a formal admin warning should be sufficient. The choice to post to Citizens United but not to Conservatism makes it look like an attempt to stack votes. But it's not an over-the-top violation; unless HughD has been admin warned or sanctioned for this before [I mean administratively, not just by opponents in the discussion], anything more than a formal warning would be overkill. [[User:|MissPiggysBoyfriend]] (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. I would be fine with a formal warning. Springee (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@MissPiggysBoyfriend: There was no attempt at votestacking. WP:RFC specifically authorizes notification to the talk pages of closely related articles, and Citizens United v. FEC was added to the "See also" section of Americans for Prosperity months ago by another editor and was there until it was deleted after this ANI filing. Meanwhile WP:CANVASS specifically "prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased" and WP:VOTESTACKING specifically prohibits selective notification based on who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. The idea of notifying WikiProject WP:CONSERVATISM was discussed at article talk 27 July 2015. The reporting user Springee participated in the decision not to notify WikiProject WP:CONSERVATISM. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Topic ban instituted. Suggest closing this ANI

Here is the text of the topic ban just implemented by admin Ricky81682:

HughD, upon reviewing the second ANI discussion, the first ANI discussion, Talk:Americans for Prosperity and the now arguments over the closing attempts at the RFC, I am now imposing a two-week topic ban against you on anything related to Americans for Prosperity. This including any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever. Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks, which will have zero overall affect in the campaign season long-term, will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space. I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope (Fred Koch and whatever else are not included) as I'm presuming that you have enough sense not to try to argue the same things in other ways and you can conduct yourself on other articles without the same attitude and arguments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since HughD is topic-banned from this issue for two weeks, and therefore the ANI complaint is currently resolved, I suggest closing this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple personal attacks by user:Harald Forkbeard that derail a RfC

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

---

re: Harald Forkbeard (talk · contribs) Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

I had a disagreement about article content which was not solved by 1-1 talk. I started a RfA, during which I deliberately did not present my point of view. Several people joined and we are carrying out a meaningful, calm, nonpersonal discussion. With the exception of Forkbeard, who obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me.

Three times I warned the user that wikipedia policies forbid personal attacks, but I was derided to "blind adherence" to "obscure policies".

• [A warning about personal attacks], issued after a long chain of statements about my mental incompetence
• insult during RfC
• Again reminded about disallowed insults
• Insult; false accusations
• Insult; false accusation (I didn't revert anything since the start of the RfC, seeking other opinions)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mat_(Russian_profanity)&diff=next&oldid=674034037 Third warning about personal insults]
• Continued insults

Normally I don't care how I am being called. I was even "Anti-Romanian antisemitic communistic vandal", I never complained, only chuckled. However in this case I think Forkbeard's multiple long diatribes about my negative personal qualities seriously derail the otherwise normal RfA discusson. Therefore I would like to ask an admin to take an action. -M.Altenmann >t 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

M.Altenmann >t>t has been acting in a hostile manner during the discussion on the Mat talk page. He has resisted all attempts to build consensus engaging in disruptive editing and obtuse interpretation of Wikipedia rules that only he holds to be applicable. He failed to make any meaningful contributions to the article choosing instead to clash with multiple editors and persist in his insistence on alleged rules. This position has been challenged by other editors. Instead of cooperating M.Altenmann >t continues to cause discord and disrupts others' work. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I might add that I am baffled by the allegations of personal attacks by M.Altenmann. His attitude has been unhelpful. Please review the talk page and edit history on the Mat article for details. It is clear to me that M.Altenmann has taken a very hostile position towards my translation of the original Russian text for the article. For some reason, M.Altenmann refuses to collaborate with other editors. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

False. Filing RfC is collaboration. Repeating that I am an idiot is not. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

True. At no time did I or any other editors use personal labels you are referring to. You continue obstructing the consensus building on this Mat article. You are pushing your point of view and refuse to contribute to the article in any constructive way. This is not a personal attack, but a plain statement of fact. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Harald Forkbeard, Could you please explain the following two edits?[85][86] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What explanation are you looking for? --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The comments you are referring to are an attempt to encourage M.Altenmann to get off the rules interpretation, and focus on coming up with a positive, tangible contribution to the article. To date, all he has done is criticize my translation without any constructive alternative being provided. This despite multiple editors explaining the situation to him, please read the talk page comments for Mat article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read the whole mess on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), in combination with the invitation posted by M.Altenmann on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#RfC:_How_much_.22poetic_license.22_does_a_translator_of_primary_sources_have_in_wikipedia.3F, I think the handling admins should at least consider Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot in this case. (Note that after asking for comments M.Altenmann responded on the first two comments of uninvolved editors with "<sigh> You are not addressing the concern" (to a comment by Diego) and with "You are wide off the mark" to my own first comment.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• (1) Please explain how the remark "you are not addressing the concern" is shooting self in the foot. (2) Please explain how Diego was in any way offended by it and how it damaged the discussion. (3) Please also explain how this remark justifies insults I am complaining about. (4) Please explain how you proved that the comment about "wide off the mark" was wrong. (5) Please explain why you took my remarks out of context here. -M.Altenmann >t 08:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know about you, but if someone told me that my dogged insistence on rules again borders on obsession, that other editors make sensible and highly valuable contributions but mine are a bewildering array of misinterpretations on various Wikipedia rules without any constructive contribution, accused me of personal bias, and told me to refrain from editing the page and find something else to do, I would not feel particularly encouraged.

As for the implied "it's OK to behave poorly because others did so first" argument, we are responsible for our own actions, and in my opinion the above diffs show a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality rather than the claimed "encouragement".

If anyone here wishes this noticeboard to consider the actions of others, please provide specific diffs rather than asking us to "read the whole mess". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Harald Forkbeards reactions are not very civil. But I think this should include a look at the mainspace edits (and summaries) by M.Altenmann that preceded the debate (including a response on an uninvolved editor invited to the rfc). [87][88][89][90][91] Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you think that these edits somehow justify massive attacks of Forkbeard, then you have serious issues with wikipedia civility rules yourself. -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• With due respect, the comments made by M.Altenmann are not very civil either. Moreover, his actions are disruptive and relentless persistence at pushing the alleged Wikipedia rules interpretation is entirely non-constructive. He has consistently failed to offer any alternative to my good faith translation. Hence, the recommendation, made by several editors, to provide an alternative translation or, in my comments, suggestion to simply walk away. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of Guy Macon, who is new to this discussion, I would provide some summary of what, in my view, happened to date:

1. I provided a good faith translation, from Russian into English, of some verses cited in the Mat article.

2. Given the obscene nature of these verses, a published source of this in English is extremely unlikely.

3. For some reason, M.Altenmann has taken exception to my translations. So far, this editor has stubbornly insisted that the translations are not verifiable. This stands to reason, as I have provided the translation myself.

4. Despite repeated attempts to encourage M.Altenmann to offer alternatives that pass muster in terms capturing the highly idiomatic essence of the verses, we have nothing still. Amazingly, M.Altenmann suggested that a verbatim translation provided by Google is better than the one offered by the native bilingual speaker. Forgive me for being extremely skeptical.

5. Despite several editors encouraging a constructive path toward consensus building through expert discussion of the verses and their translations, M.Altenmann has so far limited himself to repeated interpretations of various Wikipedia rules allegedly being violated.

Conclusion: We have a translation of well sourced Russian originals offered by myself, a native speaker of both languages. I would welcome another expert translator's contribution to break the logjam and arrive at a sensible resolution that serves the best interests of Wikipedia readers.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

False; irrelevant to the complaint. A typical example of the behavior of this editor: dodging the questions. I would love to discuss linguistic issues, but not with disrespectful opponent. -M.Altenmann >t 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is the typical response from M.Altenmann. Everything is irrelevant if it does not fit in with his particular view. Everything else is met with hostility. I have no idea what 'questions' he is talking about. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

False accusation, and example of Red herring and dodging the topic of the discussion. The "questions" were repeatedly posted in the article talk page, but answered by Forkbread with insults and claims of their superiority. I can provide diffs, of someone thinks I am a liar. -M.Altenmann >t 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Altenmann, it appears to me that you are equally if not more at fault in the RfC; other editors are trying to answer your question, report current Wikipedia guidelines, and establish and show consensus, and you are not only not collaborating, you are battling and objecting to nearly each helpful and good-faith comment. Wikipedia discussions, and especially RfCs, are about establishing consensus, not about hearing, or waiting for, the answer you want. You have failed to collaborate or even offer useful alternatives to the translation. In terms of personal attacks, please read Responding to personal attacks. In general, do not acknowledge or respond to perceived personal attacks (no matter what your past history is with the other person), and by all means do not make any of your own. Particularly in RfCs, ignore personal attacks and stick the points at hand that you wish to assess consensus on (if indeed that is your real objective). When a WP:CONSENSUS is reached or is obvious, then recognize that instead of fighting it. Having said all that, I suggest you withdraw this ANI before it WP:BOOMERANGs on you for lack of collaboration, typified by this edit in the RfC threatening another editor with being blocked. Softlavender (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  False accusations:

  • I am not battling anything pertinent to the RfC in question. I am merely noting which comments are answering the question of RfC and which are general comments I promised to address later, after the RfC is finished. What is more important, I am posting no objections. What is more, I deliberately did not state my opinion on the issue. If you see any statement of "battleground mentality" type, please provide a diff. Otherwise all you wrote is a yet another personal attack, poorly suited at this forum.
  • As for my threatening an editor for being blocked, this is outright ridiculous. I have no power to block. It was a fair warning to a user who calls our core policies WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPA "obscure rules" and who typed seven pages of insults in my address. Please also notice that I did not request here to block anybody. I request the admins to act how they deem necessary.
  • Lack of collaboration is another false accusation. I can provide diffs of collaboration with people who discuss the essence of the RfC rather than my personality traits.
  • On a final note, telling me to ignore insults I find outrageous. Nevertheless I did ignore them, to a point when it became a disruption. How you want me to build a "consensus" with a person who repeatedly declares themselves an expert and for whom I am a moron who does not know languages and poetry and a nuisance stuck to "obscure rules"? -M.Altenmann >t 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re: "stick the points at hand that you wish to assess consensus on (if indeed that is your real objective)" - a yet another uncalled-for insult. That's exactly what I was doing: marking the comments which stick to the point of RfC with me making no objections. My sole objection is the way how Forkbread is smearing me in shit. -M.Altenmann >t 04:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BOOMERANG, any time you file a complaint on a noticeboard, your behavior can and probably will be examined as well. As anyone looking at the talk page of Mat (Russian profanity) can tell, on that entire talk page you are the one being obstructive and non-cooperative, and not listening. The simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia editors are allowed to provide translations if no suitable published or online ones are available. Attribution can be in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you object to a translation, find a better one (assuming it is reliable) and cite/link it, or suggest alternative wording and seek consensus for the alternative wording. It's that simple. Again, I recommend withdrawing this complaint, dropping the stick with the editor who made the translation, ceasing the obstructionism and obscure wikilawyering, and moving on. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A yet another false interpretation of what was going in the talk page.

• Please provide diffs that demonstrate what exactly was an obstruction on my part. Otherwise please drop your boomerang and stop spreading falsehoods about my position.
• By the way, please explain how "obscure wikilawyering", if any, is a license for numerous insults.
• Also, since you are teaching me how to live, please explain, with diffs, where I insisted that wikipedians' translations should be disallowed.
• And by the way, I did provide an alternative translation, in the talk page, but self-declared expert claims that his one is better. Since I was not going to start a contest whose wikipedian's penis is longer, I filed a RfC to set ground rules for this kind of discussion. I insist that there was some kind of consensus growing (I can easily prvide diffs), but the discussion was repeatedly derailed by insults from the O.P., hence this complaint here. -M.Altenmann >t 07:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block for Altenmann

Propose boomerang block for Altenmann for disruptive editing, battleground mentality, mind games, general combativeness, and obscure pettifoggery, all on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), from the top to the bottom. The ongoing and completely unnecessary dispute is wasting everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, since even after the situation was simplified above the user still won't drop the stick or propose a solution to the translation he apparently objects to. Length of block to be determined by community consensus or reviewing admin. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another false accusation. Since filing this complaint I did not write a single word in Talk:Mat (Russian profanity);
    • P.S. Sorry, I was wrong; I did post [one comment]. It does start with the phrase "Sorry, you are mistaken". So you can judge my "battleground mentality" for yourself from the "primary source", so to say. -M.Altenmann >t 08:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • and if user Forkbeard gets a free license with insults, I hereby declare that I will take this article off my watch list altogether, since it will indeed waste of my time: In my plans there are at least 159 articles to create this year. -M.Altenmann >t 08:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

So far, M.Altenmann is the only editor who has resorted to profanities, accusations, and exhibited utter disregard for other editors' opinions. The only way to reach a consensus with M.Altenmann is to agree with everything he demands. There does not appear to be room for a different opinion as long as M.Altenmann is around. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Repetition of false general accusation, see section #Evidence, please. -M.Altenmann >t 16:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, i have to agree with Altenmann, i am not aware of profanities at all being used, and although there was disagreement and edit-warring to start, we should see that as following from opinions strongly held. Since then Altenmann has facilitated there being a rational, polite discussion and is clearly offended (legitimately) by too-strong, too-harsh language. "Mat" itself is about being offensive, deliberately, let's not follow that tone. --doncram 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Altenmann clearly was genuinely disturbed by tone and wording at the Talk:Mat page, and has done nothing wrong by bringing up the matter here. I personally hate wp:ANI as it usually seems destructive of all participants, so I would have wanted to avoid this, but, seriously there is no call for hammering Altenmann. Altenmann is right to call for diffs, too, but I hope we could dispense with that too, and others than Altenmann just cool off and back away, in my opinion. I will rethink my own role in this, too. I agreed with H F's views and disagreed with A's views about the content, to start with, and said so, and acted offended myself maybe over-doing it a little. And Altenmann is NOT wrong that there should be some line, some way to discern what is acceptable translation or not, and the RFC which Altenmann helpfully started is providing guidance (i think towards consensus that we just have to create alternative translations and discuss which is better and why). --doncram 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Lavender from this discussion

Throwing wild accusations without proof and at the same time denying the right to defend oneself against accusations is a grave violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -M.Altenmann >t 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple proof that Lavender's accusations are bullshit:

• Here I readily admit that my understanding was mistaken, after an argument was given rather than generic rant that I no understand nothing. I did it without bickering, and no hard feelings, but the latter is hard to prove to those who lack basic AGF.
• Here, folowing the admitted mistake and the suggestions made, I announced an intention to present my actual (i.e. without wikilawyering) arguments in talk page why the translation was wrong, but while I was preparing them, in 5 minutes I was reverted. While I see tag removal without addressing the concern as violation of policies, I let it go without a mum. -M.Altenmann >t 10:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If one needs more, I can give you more. -M.Altenmann >t 10:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence, please

I am getting tired of reading accusations without specific diffs demonstrating the alleged misbehavior. (for those who have provided such diffs, this comment is not for you -- instead you have my thanks.) May we have less heat and more light, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to read (or skim) through Talk:Mat (Russian profanity), which I posted in my proposal. It's not long, and the evidence is there from the second line, and is all conversation- (response-) linked, so it requires reading the conversations. Altenmann has posted 30 such non-collaborative posts; I am not going to link them all, and I'm not going to post only some of them. To me this is all pretty obvious; others may disagree and that's fine, that's what the poll is for. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second this. Guy Macon, you have all the facts you need in the Mat article history and Talk comments. Besides, there is plenty of demonstrated actions on the part of Altenmann in this discussion. Observe profanities, combativeness, and persistence to get his way, no matter what other editors suggest. Seems pretty clear to me. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

False general accusation. I always consider merits of the objection and I have no troubles with admitting mistakes whatsoever. -M.Altenmann >t 16:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

another recent example that I have no troubles with quickly reaching agreement when presented with meaningful arguments. -M.Altenmann >t 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The above is a good example. M.Altenmann claiming that he has no troubles with admitting mistakes is of little value to ANI, but M.Altenmann claiming that he has no troubles with admitting mistakes with a recent diff showing a specific example of him doing that transforms it from a claim to a claim with evidence to back it up. Likewise, because Softlavender and Harald Forkbeard refuse to provide diffs showing examples of the behavior that they claim occurred, the default assumption is that they can't provide diffs because what they described never happened. Certainly no Wikipedia administrator is going to sanction anyone without evidence, The English Wikipedia has 48,269,960 registered users, 121,930 active editors, and 852 administrators. Together we have made 1,252,859,867 edits, created 61,846,077 pages of all kinds and created 6,911,072 articles. Given the large number of users, pages, and edits and the small number of administrators, it is unreasonable to ask an admiistrator to go looking for evidence. You really need to post your evidence on ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The evidence has been provided, twice -- once in the proposal, and a second time at your request. Your lack of examination of the evidence is your own choice. Anyone interested in the evidence provided can click the link provided. Softlavender (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this case is not a very easy one. Harald Forkbeard has been impolite to M.Altenmann and has probably used stronger language than he should have. M.Altenmann (except for his edits and edit summaries of which I provided the diffs above) has been (in my view) somewhat more cunning in his edits staying just shy of specific clear violations of policies (It might constitute Wikipedia:Wikilawyering). However, much of the impolite responses of Harald Forkbeard appear to be provoked by M.Altenmann if you read through the talk on the MAT talk page, and I can even imagine that Harald Forkbeard feels himself the victim of trolling by M.Altenmann [92] (which is of course no excuse for impoliteness). While staying within the letter of many policies, M.Altenmann at no time has shown adherence to the core spirit of the Wikipedia project - i.e. collaboration to come to a best possible article - as he has not made any effort to come up with a (n alternative) translation that can carry consensus. In my view unilateral sanctions aimed at Harald Forkbeard therefore seem in any case unfair. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• False accusation. I have already provided a diff where I clearly admitted my misunderstanding, after being present with a respectful argument. I didn't pay attencion whose comments I was answering and when, but browsing thru my diffs I noticed that I paid my respects even to User:Arnoutf's opinions, so accusations of trolling and wikilawyering are quite surprizing. -M.Altenmann >t 17:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What is more; I checked and now see it was exactly Arnoutf blocked my intention to start a discussion about correct translation (acting upon my recognition of my misunderstanding):

• 03:33, August 1, 2015‎ Arnoutf (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,438 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Altenmann (talk): Please dont add such templates while RfC on talk is ongoing (on your own invitation).

...and now I am blamed for not doing this. -M.Altenmann >t 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• re: he has not made any effort to come up with a (n alternative) translation - False accusation. An alternative translation was presented (in the talk page; without reverting in the article text), but dismissed, the argument being insults to my knowledge of languages and claims of expertic superiority, rather than comparing merits of the text. This is exactly why I temporarily discontinued the discussion in talk page and filed this complaint: I see that the discussion is being derailed by personal attacks of the O.P. -M.Altenmann >t 18:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re "The evidence has been provided, twice", I didn't ask for what Softlavender considers to be evidence (a link to a page and a demand that the reader find the alleged evidence somewhere on the page). I asked for specific diffs showing the behavior. No diff = no evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I realize that you would prefer diffs, but I explained why diffs would be actually inappropriate here: I would be posting 30 diffs (and also 20 or so more diffs from the other participants in the discussions by way of explanation). Much easier for people to just read the page -- it's very easy to read. There is no policy that evidence must only be in individual diffs. I provided the link to the evidence; it is up to individuals reading this ANI whether they want to click the link or not. There is no need to "find the alleged evidence somewhere on the page"; the evidence is there from the very beginning, and there is nothing whatsoever unrelated on the page (the talk page was fully archived before any of the current discussions involving Altenmann were begun). This is easy to see if the link is clicked. I will provide it again here: Talk:Mat (Russian profanity). Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are being uncooperative -- not a good thing if you want ANI to take action against another editor. You don't have to post "30 diffs". Just pick one or two that show the behavior that you claim occurred. At this point I am completely convinced that you refuse to post any diffs because they do not exist. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting some actual evidence in the form of diffs that backs up your claims. It would seem to be an easy task to respond to one or two of M.Altenmann's "false accusation" posts with a diff or two that show that the accusation is true. The repeated refusal to do that by you (Softlavender) and Harald Forkbeard leads me to the inevitable conclusion that they probably are false accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Diffs

Let me just provide the diffs so that the discussion can move on:(User:Harald Forkbeard) It started like this:[93] and continued, [94] and the tone gets rough, it continues with this,escalates to this and that.

Meanwhile:(User:M.Altenmann) started with explaining policies, continued with presenting a machine translation and proposing changing that and putting it into the article. Then these comments... at least "No references - bite the bullet" isn't really nice and puts oil into the fire. It keeps being ok for some comments and then M.Altenmann asks Harald to answer his questions directly. After opening a rfc about that, these edits already threaten the user with being blocked, note that he says "[...] if you continue with your personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing for disruption" in the last diff. These edits follow, telling us that the translation isn't correct but not why, which other editors answered([95];[96];[97])This followed, with demands that the other users should answer his question in the RFC and not say anything else. Then, he states that he will ask an admin to ban Harald if he continues to do personal attacks. Then he again that the editors should do what he wanted when he opened the RFC , and because of that, Arnoutf leaves the debate.

--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• "No references - bite the bullet" not nice phrasing but is not an attack on opponents skills or personality. Moreover, phrased in the context of explanation of a policy about citing sources, hot being addressed personally. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I admit I am not an expert in English and it occurred to me to double-check with a dictionary. And now I am highly surprised how an Earth an advice to endure an unpleasant situation is an insult. - user:Altenmann >t 03:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Altenmann, hadn't it occured to you that you should offer the same courtesy that you request? Harald Forkbeard's comments [98][99] were not insults but rather his personal opinion on your behavior and "advice to endure an unpleasant situation", very much like yours; yet you decided that those comments were personal attacks[100] and warned him that you would try to get him blocked [101] (which you eventually did, by bringing this to ANI).

It occurs to me that you think that your behavior in this incident has been neutral and detached (you described it as us having "a meaningful, calm, nonpersonal discussion", which is nowhere near how the other editors have perceived it). Thus you are unaware of how your own comments come through to others as aggressive, and of how you have inadvertently contributed to escalate the confrontation (among other things by stating "Forkbeard obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me", which is a severe failure to asume good faith, and by starting this ANI request -which is an extremely severe measure to take- over a disagreement with the interpretation of policy).

A warning by the administrator, as suggested in the proposal below, should be a call for you to reflect on how you have approached this discussion. I encourage you to try to deescalate the tension, starting now, by focusing on discussion over the content rather than responding to every comment that includes a trace of negativity. Diego (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir, colleague. My remark was impersonal advice regarding policies. It is not the first time I meet with people who get all pissed off with the slightest mention the fact that they, when joining a community, must follow its rules. They feel this somehow encroaches on their freedoms. This point of view is quite widespread, has its merits, but very difficult to agree with, especially when this point of view is accompanied by an outburst of a heated attack on the opponent using whatever artillery they have at hand. Most commonly it is blind rage, because logic will not support them. You are telling me that my impersonal reminder of policies is somehow on par with diatribes from your own diff :"You are acting in a disruptive, belligerent manner showing no respect to the opinions of other editors. You have so far failed to add anything other than rote quotes from so-called rules that you interpret to suit your hostile attitude." Please find texts better that that to support your point. - user:Altenmann >t 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

re: which you eventually did, by bringing this to ANI. - False accusation based on your faulty understanding of ANI. ANI is not a "Block dispenser" I know this, some don't. Therefore I phrase my request without teaching admin how to do their job. Moreover I repeatedly stated that I do not seek blocking Forkbeard. Sadly, your attitude serves to reinforcing incivility, as evidenced by the continued behavior of Forkbread, who came here not to say "sorry", but to further spread falsehoods about the opponent: "He has consistently failed to offer any alternative to my good faith translation" - false ;"profanities, combativeness, and persistence to get his way, no matter what other editors suggest." - false, and so on. And now you are with straight face telling me about " a severe failure to asume good faith,"? - user:Altenmann >t 15:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You still fail to recognize any problem in your behavior and think of yourself as a paragon of calm detachment; which is a problem, because expressions of yours like "strike three"[102], "<sigh>"[103], "you're not helpful"[104], [you're making] "false accusations"[105], "you obviously ignored to read" [the policy/guideline][106], bolded remarks like "I was not asking about your translation"[107], and calling every other comment about your behavior a "personal attack" [108] or an "insult"[109] don't come out as the neutral, objective, impersonal reminders you want them to be, in special when aggregated over an already heated disagreement. And yes, I say that your description of Forkbeard's behavior as "obvioulsy has an acute grudge against me" is a failure to assume good faith, double so when you provide it as the rationale for an ANI intervention, where a block of the targeted user is a very real possibility (you didn't ask for it, but you didn't ask for it to no be applied either; had you included a simple "I am not suggesting that Forkbeard be blocked" would have put this whole request in a different light; though if you're not pursuing that he be banned from the thread - the only result that would require administrative action-, it raises the question of why you have filled this request at all). Diego (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please explain why "strike three" is a personal attack against somebody. - user:Altenmann >t 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Please explain how [you're making] "false accusations" , accompanied with proof they are false is a personal attack - user:Altenmann >t 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Please explain how the statement and calling every other comment about your behavior a "personal attack" [110] is supported by your diff. - user:Altenmann >t 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Once again, what's wrong with asking for administrative actions to deter disruptive behavior? - user:Altenmann >t 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• re "you <...> think of yourself as a paragon of calm detachment" - What I think of myself even my wife does not know. But I do work hard on my calm detachment, how did you guess this?. - user:Altenmann >t 03:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Threaten user with being blocked" - Not an attack. In wikipedia we don't "threaten". We warn, when a wikipedian continues an inappropriate behavior. History of wikipedia shows if I were a buddy of an admin, Forkbread would have been blocked 52 hours ago already. I did not run crybaby to admins right away, I tolerated the insults for two days. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• " with demands that the other users should answer his question in the RFC and not say anything else. " - False accusation. The diff provided in one part actually says. "Sorry I was wrong" and in 2nd and 3rd part I ask not to second-guess my ulterior motives, just answer my questions. I also remark that I understand that our policies are not cast in stone. How this is interpreted to be a hostility, beats my brains out of my head. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• "again that the editors should do what he wanted when he opened the RFC ". False accusation. In this diff I don't demand anything at all. Moreover, I write that I will address all other questions (irrelevant to RfC) in a separate talk. -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• re: arnouf leaves the discussion . How is that an accusation against me? Arnouf writes: " I have given my comment on request. Do with it what you think best." - And in my previous comments I have already explained that I will do that, only later. Notice that unlike my opponents I did not respond to this like: "Arnouf accepts only what he wants to hear. He did not get what he wanted, now he slams the door". -M.Altenmann >t 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yikes to all of this. I was trying to help at Talk:Mat and am afraid I did not. I should have spoken up for Altenmann there by now, where they were getting a hard time overall yet they were following a process with integrity, IMO. Altenmann set up the RFC process which is constructive and they are accepting that, trying to follow a rational process, which probably next would be to discuss specific alternatives. I did not know what would be said in the RFC and I think it is turning out differently than what Altenmann expected or sought, also, but Altenmann and I and others should follow this process out, as A and I at least are willing to do. And, in the process, be polite. H F was "right" in my opinion that his translation should be accepted, at least for now, and that is the emerging consensus of the RFC i think. Neither H F nor Altenmann were "right" in the early back-and-forth; both were trying to force their way (as did i, i guess, too). But the edit-warring ceased and RFC process was started, and it is working, and H F could be said to be "winning" in the emerging consensus of the RFC. But mainly there is no call for the harsh language and accusations, and at this point it feels to me that Altenmann is unfairly being attacked too much.

I've said elsewhere about bullying in Wikipedia (which I think is the worst thing about Wikipedia), that if someone feels they are being bullied they probably are, and their experience is genuine, and anyone observing that should jolly well back off and avoid furthering that experience, or better yet help them out in some way. This hasn't been bullying, but the same goes for too-harsh statements being taken as offensive. That is real. I would hope everyone involved could see their way to apologizing for something, and to acknowledging that all others have had some legitimate views or whatever, too. I am sorry that I helped raise the temperature at the Talk page, myself, when I was irked at one point. But I wasn't hurt personally, and I have to respect the RFC process which was opened sensibly and which is overall fine (except for bursts of too strong stuff). I'll stop after one plea.

To Altenmann and to Harald Forkman: I don't know what your previous experience has been, but coming to ANI is usually awful IMO, and it does NOT provide reasonable interventions. Note, an ANI discussion does not have to end with a judgement one way or the other...it can be allowed to just fade away, if all would back away and say a milder thing or two and then not say anything more. I will watch here and may well comment more here, but overall I hope we could all back away from ANI, that is probably the most important thing now, IMO. --doncram 04:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wise wordsdoncram. It is probably best to move away from this ANI. IMO neither party is free from blame, but neither party appears to intend to damage the project either. Cooling off for a while (e.g. by agreeing not to edit the article for a week by either party) and subsequently trying to find consensus for a translation would probably be best. Arnoutf (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's sorry, disagreed. My purpose was asking admins to intervene. I did not ask no block anybody to get an upper hand. All I wanted is somebody with authority to explain Forkbrad that his way of carrying out the discussion is not permitted. And somehow this discussion discussion is derailed again. And I will probably be accused of "Pushing hard until I get what I want". What a hypocrisy. All what I ever wanted is for discussion is get focused on the issue at hand. -M.Altenmann >t 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not what this page is for, and I find troublesome that you'd think bringing editors over here for such reason was a good idea. ANIs are filed when whe have a need of the special powers granted to administrators by the community which are outside the reach of normal editors, such as enforcement of topic bans or outright blocks. We are supposed to be grown-ups who take responsibility for our own actions (Wikipedia has been described as a practical experiment in anarchy, after all; we don't to require the service of admins other than as arbiters, not rulers or judges). Warnings to troublesome editors only happen when it is determined that such special tools are not needed, and therefore it's not a case requiring those special tools - therefore, the same result could happen elsewhere without the intervention of an administrator; because such decision to issue a warning is the outcome of a consensus by community participants, not of any special role of authority held by the admins. If you want to discuss an editor's behavior, the informal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or a request for mediation would have been a much less heavyweight way to request commentary on a users' conduct than this aggressive move to the noticeboard for "Incidents requiring administrators intervention". Diego (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. In my book DRN and RfM are for content dispute. The content dispute in question was on its successful way in the article talk page. You seem to quickly forget that I expressed an agreement with your argument, admitted my mistake, and all was about to be amicably closed by smoothing the details but for incessant personal attacks of a single editor. - user:Altenmann >t 02:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I just went through all of the diffs provided and found no evidence of M.Altenmann violating any policy or guideline. All I saw is a content dispute, and ANI does not deal with content disputes. See WP:DRR for a guide on where to take content disputes.

If anyone thinks I missed something (which certainly is possible) please provide a specific diff of a comment by M.Altenmann that violates a policy or guideline, and tell us what the policy is. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence provided, and now?

Now that I have provided lots of evidence( see here), what now? User:M.Altenmann has, in my opinion(again, see the evidence above), Ownership problems with the RFC he started, has probably heated the discussion with that unnecessary comment here and has threatened admin action, more than once(for diffs, see above), even a ban by an adminstrator in an article (without any general sanctions) once. That's not good. Also, he didn't provide any argument towards possible specific problems with the translation once. Only general accusations. User:Harald Forkbeard has, however, been quite uncivil in this discussion, (again, see my post in the above section).

My personal opinion on Harald Forkbeard is that a strong official warning regarding personal attacks and a similar warning regarding edit wars from the community might be sufficient. --Müdigkeit (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I am going to analyses them and post my conclusions. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

re " Ownership problems" Blatantly false accusation. All what I did was I did not comment on remarks outside of the scope of the "RfC", I did not make any negative comments on any remarks made in RfC; I only remarked some comments are outside of scope so I will address them in a separate thread. Moreover, I did admit, twice, that I was wrong and this RfC influenced my position. -M.Altenmann >t 15:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I read all this, and Talk:Mat (Russian profanity) too.

The content dispute here is pretty simple.

• Back in March, Harald Forkbeard (a fairly new user) provided a more.. colorful original translation of 2 poems in Russian. (e.g untranslated "khuy" >> "cock"; "'cherry'" (in quotes) >> "pussy")
• On June 27, Altenmann (who is quite experienced) tagged with CN asking "who translated"
• July 27 Harald answered in an in-text hidden editorial comment,

and edit warring broke out at the article and a flaming war, on Talk. I want to point out that Altenmann started in way too hot on Talk with this, writing "NO. I need a third party source which published the translation...." and that from the getgo, Harald was resistant, and here put his stake in the ground; " I still like my rendition better as it captures the original Russian in spirit, not in verbatim word. The judgment call on my poetic license is just that, a matter of personal opinion." and really misses the importance of WP:CONSENSUS especially in matters of judgement, where policy isn't clear.

My view on the content dispute is that it is pretty clear per WP:NONENG that we do not need a source for a translation (a published translation is preferred if available) and that there is ambiguity in the policy over how much license the translator can take. The RfC that Altenmann later started was a great idea but by then Harald was already very antagonized and Altenmann already had let himself go.

behavior-wise - what ANI is for - they both have behaved badly. fwiw, I propose a 24 hour block for both of them per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, with a warning to each of them to back off the issue in the RfC and to listen to the close; with a particular warning to Altenmann re WP:BITE and not to be so harsh when policy is ambiguous; and a warning to Harald to be more sensitive to WP:CONSENSUS from others when translating artfully. There was no need for all this drama. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (fix Altenmann ping and re-sign, sorry for the re-ping Harald Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC))

• support as proposer (obviously) Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (amend to emphasize part about behavior Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC))

• • No need as I don't intend to touch this article again. The amount of effort going into this discussion far exceeds the value of contributing to the Mat article. At this rate a number of articles useful for Wikipedia readers could have been written. I am done with this article. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • False interpretation, based on a cherry-picked quotation. The full quote clearly shows that I suggested Forkbread a compromise solution: I clearly gave him an alternative: either give a reference or provide a more faithful translation. So you are saying that a suggestion of a compromise solution is an insult and an excuse for escalation of insults? - user:Altenmann >t 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"NO. I need a third party source which published the translation. (Did you bother to read the wikipedia policies after all? But at least you started thinking in the right direction.) Now let me make one step further and explain what is the problem in your case, which is also an advice how to resolve the problem. Normally there is no problems with adding a literal translation, because, after all, we add information from various sources in various languages and the translation is always involved. This is not so in the case of a poetic translation, because it involves a liberal poetic interpretation and modification by a wikipedian, which is a strict no-no in wikipedia; don't even try. Therefore if you want to help the readers to understand a poem, please provide word-by-word translation, accompanied with the text in which the words are placed in the proper syntactic order. This is how it is done in works in linguistics. It is a completely different story if you provide a published translation. Such text usually has its own encyclopedic value and will not be questioned. -M.Altenmann >t 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "

• • False interpretation of the initial edit as a "minor tweak", hinting that it was not worth the fuss. I had no problems with the previous unreferenced translation for years, and not because it was an exact rendition of the Russian text. The new translation went too far beyond synonym substitution and word order. and distorted the original meaning of the poem. (Of course this does not matter to those who see it as one big obscenity no matter how you translate - a valid point of view, btw.). - user:Altenmann >t 02:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• I support the proposal of minor warnings as a light reminder to remain civil at all times, minus the block; discussion has already cooled down and there's no need for preventive measures.

I also want to thank Harald Forkbeard for the effort in providing the translation. That kind of WP:BOLD contribution is exactly what we should encourage, and these petty scuffles over rule-following do more harm than good to the project. Don't be discouraged by the drama, for every article where a disagreement raises its ugly head, there a dozen more where you can contribute without finding resistance and where your contributions will remain. Diego (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Petty scuffles over rule-following" happens because people are different and one has to accept this, and don't use it as an excuse for personal attacks, including the phrasing "petty scuffles". I stopped what you call "petty scuffling" exactly at the moment I filed the RfC. My beloved opponents prefer to interpret this as an attempt to push my POV. And how is that it is me who is tagged with "battleground mentality"? I filed the RfC knowing perfectly well that I have no buddies around to flock in and defend. I filed it to find the correct solution, because I don't assume myself absolute expert in anything. I filed it because before any continuation of the discussion of the translation I wanted to establish which arguments will be acceptable. I agree here we meet two polar views. One is "I am an expert, and who are you?" Another is "Wikipedia has rules. You don't like my view of these rules? Let's establish common rules!" If you think this is "petty scuffling", don't take part in it, but don't spread disrespect to fellow editors. - user:Altenmann >t 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think that me describing this situation as "petty scuffling" is a personal attack on you, right there you have illustrated the problem of why that discussion has escalated to an ANI report. Diego (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think you know what constitutes intorelable (by me) personal attack for me, you are mistaken. As for whether it is an attack, any negative comments not related to article content and directly referring to the O.P. are personal attacks. Please refresh your knowledge WP:NPA, and then we can go point-by point how I stand as for this policy. - user:Altenmann >t 01:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Example: when one abuser was calling me "anti-Romanian anti-Semitic Communist vandal" I only chuckled and did not call for no ANI, because it was clearly a rant explainable, e.g., by emotional state or temporary mental disorder. But when a person repeatedly expresses doubts in my aptitude and casts various false accusations as an argument in he discussion', then excuse moi, it may be a "petty scuffle" for a bystander, but for me it is a disruption of the wikipedia work. - user:Altenmann >t 03:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

any negative comments not related to article content and directly referring to the O.P. are personal attacks Oh please, go grow a thicker skin. With that attitude you're going to be a magnet for drama, which is not good for the project. Personal attacks need to be, well, personal; and not every WP:UNCIVIL remark is intended by the originator as a disparaging evaluation of the person. I suggest you take a second look at WP:NPA#WHATIS a personal attack (and in particular to responding to personal attacks, which you pretty much completely failed to follow), because your definition pretty much doesn't cut it. The universe doesn't revolve around you. Diego (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea how thick my skin grew in 11 years. You are right on the spot that "Personal attacks need to be, well, personal". You are 100% accurate in saying " not every WP:UNCIVIL remark is intended by the originator as a disparaging evaluation of the person". Now please apply this yardstick to the expressions like this: "You have so far failed to add anything other than rote quotes from so-called rules that you interpret to suit your hostile attitude." I read is as a false (provably) statement of fact, evasion of the expressed concerns, plus a negative judgement of my personal qualities and intentions. When stated once in article talk page it may be accepted as an emotional rant. But when the same falsehoods are brought to this board as an argument of innocence, I see it as a severe lack of both civility and common sense. And this is with a good deal of WP:AGF, mind you. When AGF is overstressed, I starts reminding a well-known tactic of throwing random dirt on an opponent non-stop in the hope that something sticks. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is what you should have used if you wanted more than the request for comment, because it is what were're here for, to write content, not to request judgement of your fellow editors. What you faced there is best solved with a polity reminder to the other editor to focus on content, not behavior, and if that goes wrong, with a decision to stop interacting; i.e., handling the problem as responsible adults. Warning to start an ANI for such a minor incident is a terrible idea, and actually doing it is the way to ensure that things will blow out of all proportion; ANI is for severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by administrators and experienced editors, which this was not. Diego (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you are mistaken, based on reading my mind and your incorrect understanding of wikipedia policies. I repeatedly explained: in respect of article content I did not want more than the request for comment. The dispute resolution was on its successful track in the article talk page. And yes, we have the full right to request judgement of editors'behavior when felt that it becomes disruptive. Pleas don throw WP:HERE on me. I hate to brag, but my contributions speak for themselves what I am here for. Finally, please let the admins judge what is minor incident, and what is a pattern of disruptive behavior (Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat :-). - üser:Altenmann >t 14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's a scuffle but no one has yet provided a source as to the original Russian poem. I've tried to remove it until someone first provides that and then we can argue about the translation from there. Ideally we want (a) reliable secondary source translating the poem and then (b) a primary source in Russian discussing the word within that poem but instead we have (c) no source as to the Russian poem, no source to the translation (or why there's three columns and thus two translations or something), no source that the 1834 meaning of the word is even relevant today and so on. BOLD contributions are fine but the editors still need to provide the evidence to support their content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682

The admin Ricky81682 has destroyed the content at the mat page. You can see on the talk page that he repeatedly deletes content without discussion and disrupts everyone's work on the article. He's removed all the variations and keeps on threatening User:doncram for trying to save the content. He shouldn't be allowed near the article anymore. A warning is needed for him as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.182 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a regular editor hiding their identity by using an IP, as can be seen by their contrib list and their knowledge of Wikipedia processes. Their comments should be ignored until they are posted under their normal account. BMK (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

no, I am one who fears retaliation. I do not use a name so I can avoid the stranglehold from the powers that be. Admins like Ricky must serve as a warning to everyone that it is content creators who matter not janitors who threaten and attack everyone who disagrees with them. We need more people like doncram who won't kneel down below the claims of "verification" when the people say that they would rather have the content than lose it. The burden needs to change so that people aren't attacked anymore by drive-by haters.

• Comment There's a 3RR report against me for disputing this disruption so I'm going to take a voluntary withdrawal from the article. Classic thanks for finding an actual translation to try to resolve the issue behind the whole RFC issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

you deserve an admonishment and a ban. You have no right to attack others. No one should have to prove anything to you.

(EC) Well, I just opened a wp:3RRNB report about editor Ricky81682 which is where I suggest this current problem be discussed. It is separable from this ANI discussion about two other editors. Ricky81682 joined into the ANI and Talk page discussions, unfortunately following the poor behavior of multiple removals without real discussion, against emerging consensus. I didn't know they were an administrator, are they? If so, this is exceedingly poor. I opened the 3RR because of their repeated deletions of material, ignoring the BRD cycle process, and actually exceeding 3RR by a 4th reversion removing others' material. It doesn't matter who the I.P. editor is; the behavior is raised as a problem by me, at 3RR. In response to Ricky81682's comment in edit conflict, I do note at the 3RR that they seem to have begun some constructive edits, finding a source or two, but this is too late, too little in my view. This is only after they violated 4RR and showed their way of forcing deletion. If they sincerely wish to contribute and not battle, I suggest they offer at the 3RR to agree to restoration of the disputed material and to back off for a period, entirely. I do think this edit-warring behavior of Ricky81682 does not need to be discussed here, which was/is about others' previous behavior. --doncram 00:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

not good enough. His edits Should be removed and he should be banned. His antics are not appropriate at all. bRD is clear, once it was added it stays until someone proves that it's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.182 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Here, I restored the bullet list of unsourced Russian cursing. I already provided a link to a Russian-English idiom dictionary and can't find any references supporting them and I'll let it go. As to banning or whatever, I'll let everyone decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And your admin buddy just saved your ass on the 3RR. Admins should be held to a higher standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.61 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal to Desysop

Desysop Ricky81682 now. It's clear he has none of the attributes required to be an administrator. He should not be disparaging and attacking everyone working at Mat. His misuse of his tools demands swift and immediate retaliation. The world must know that Wikipedia is a place for all people not for the cabal. A block isn't good enough, a ban isn't enogh, administrators must be publicly humiliated as a warning to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.182 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Rejected, and IP blocked for trolling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The cabal has spoken. Can anyone give me a good reason why he shouldn't be punished the same as anyone else would be? All he offers is that he can't find a source, that's not good enough. People provide him sources all the time and he destroys them. How isn't it fair for him to have to respond in kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.61 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I just block you? The Cabal 01:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You blocked another IP address in the block. He is shape-shifting and needs range-blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Shape shifting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.8 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, fwiw. The shape shifters have not provided any compelling evidence at all of admin abuse. I don't think Ricky used the tools at all here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even threaten to use the tools. I specifically said I'd file a report to ANI as I knew I was an involved administrator and it would be an obvious misuse. I believe the editor stated that they weren't even aware I was an admin (which used to be considered a good thing lol). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't engage any further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Admins aren't a better class of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.101 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal to close the thread

I filed the complaint based on a mistaken assumption that this was a new user, who acquired the manners in various internet boards where people routinely go to each other's throats. And I wanted some authority to explain him his wrong ways. Now, after going through his contributions, I came to an opinion that this account is a sock, therefore there is little sense to teach him manners. Since there are much more serious dramas for admins to handle I suggest to close this thread as withdrawn. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Swarm ♠ 02:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

Based on my assessment of this situation, there was no conduct here whatsoever from either party that warrants administrator intervention. In my opinion, the most disruptive aspect of this dispute has been this ridiculously dramatic AN/I thread. Everyone observed that both users' civility levels dipped below our behavioral standards, but administrator intervention for these situations only occurs in extreme situations. Altenmann has withdrawn his complaint and should take the allegation and his supporting evidence to SPI or he should drop that accusation. Not doing so is considered a serious and intolerable personal attack. Swarm ♠ 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Checklinks making changes outside of its scope

I and and other users have found the Checklinks to be executing changes outside of intended scope, as seen for instance here. The tool is intended to purely check whether the links in an article and to allow us to add archived links to links which turn out to be dead. In reality, it also changes table formatting. Now I have no problem with someone making a tool or bot to replace deprecated markup like align= in tables but that is not the intend of this link repairing tool. Moreover not all the coding changes it has been programmed are good. For instance in the edit I referred to, every instance of data-sort-value=".." was changed to data-sort- value="..", for no good reason, messing it up and rendering it non functional. I feel that any change of formatting should be removed from this tools functionality and it should only check and "repair" links. This has been raised many times over the years with Dispenser, who created and maintains this tool, (as seen here, here and here) but they either declined to respond or responded that the changes were fine because they replaced deprecated markup and in any case decline to make any change to the tool. And it turns out Dispenser's Reflinks has the same behavior. Tvx1 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Uncheck "apply common fixes" when you use the tool. KonveyorBelt 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I took me a while to find out how, but it worked. Thanks, Tvx1 18:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Long-term disruption from the Chipmunks vandal

A long-term vandal is back at it again, adding trivial details about fictional bands covering songs. He's been blocked many times before; see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Chipmunks vandal. The recently active IP, Special:Contributions/24.207.192.64, has resumed doing the same exact stuff after a 48-hour block. He adds Muppets, Chipmunks, Chipettes and Glee cover versions.[111][112][113]

It would be mighty nice if someone could block him for a year, the same block dealt out to previous IPs he used. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring - female footballers

• MbahGondrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Målfarlig! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above users are involved in a protracted edit war over the use of infobox references in a number of football articles, including Fabiana da Silva Simões (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Luciana Maria Dionizio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Andressa Alves da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The users were previously involved in an edit war at Nadine Angerer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which led to a three-day protection here) however the battleground moved elsewhere.

Despite a number of discussions including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#Brazilian Women.27s International Goals and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#WP:INFOBOXREF, the constant reverting has continued.Hack (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Oncenawhile

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

Oncenawhile has been engaged in persistent disruptive editing regarding the southern levant. Recently, he removed the southern levant category from a multitude of pages, seemingly arbitrarily and for no meaningful reason as far as I can see. Diffs are 21:20, 13 July 2015, 21:20, 13 July 201521:20, 13 July 201521:20, 13 July 201521:21, 13 July 201521:21, 13 July 2015 21:21, 13 July 201521:21, 13 July 201521:24, 13 July 201521:25, 13 July 2015 21:25, 13 July 201521:25, 13 July 2015 21:26, 13 July 201521:27, 13 July 201521:28, 13 July 201521:28, 13 July 201521:28, 13 July 201521:29, 13 July 201521:29, 13 July 201521:29, 13 July 201521:29, 13 July 201521:30, 13 July 201522:26, 15 July 201522:27, 15 July 201522:27, 15 July 201522:28, 15 July 201522:29, 15 July 2015 These edits were made seconds apart from one another, which seems to indicate it was a calculated action.

Additionally, he's been removing references to the southern levant in articles. For example, here he replaces all references to "southern levant" with "the region". It's curious that he didn't remove the phrase "south levant", which leads me to speculate that he was simply doing a find and replace for "southern levant" with "the region". It's worth pointing out that these changes weren't mentioned in his edit description. He also made an incorrect edit that reduced the size of the southern levant in the lead of both the main page and the category, in conflict with reliable sources, here. On the category page, he also removed a helpful and relevant image here

He's repeatedly been removing references to the southern levant and taking steps to make the existing articles less helpful. It's extremely disruptive and I hope something can be done about it. Drsmoo (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. The category amendments were almost all labelled in the edit comment, and are in line with my view that, for many articles, this is a wholly unnecessary category listing given that we have other categories for similar but much better defined and more commonly used regional descriptions. Your dozens of reverts across many articles without a single attempt to discuss is unfortunately aggressive behaviour.

On the Southern Levant article and category itself, your are wrong and the map is inaccurate (or at least, highly imprecise). Let's discuss on the relevant talk pages.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, your personal view of "Southern Levant" is completely irrelevant to wikipedia editing and an example of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Your personal opinions do not permit you to make sweeping edits of dozens of references to a regional description you happen to not like. You were not involved with the articles you removed the categories from, you found them because they referenced a regional description you dislike and removed them, that is disruptive editing. Additionally, removing the word "southern levant" from an article about "Nonferrous Archaeometallurgy in the Southern Levant" and replacing them with "the region" gives away that this has nothing to do with using "more specific" (in your own words) terminology.

Your statement that the map used in the Southern Levant article is inaccurate is also incorrect, as is your uncited description of the physical location of the region. I apprecite the fact that you stated/admitted the edits are based on your personal opinion that it is a bad regional description. Unfortunately your personal opinion does not override the conclusions of archaeologists and scholars, and your personal opinions do not permit making 30 or so edits within a span of seconds to remove references to a region. Drsmoo (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you do not agree, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, you failed to WP:AGF, causing unnecessary angst. I look forward to discussing on the relevant pages. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny.

I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban violation by User:TripWire

TripWire was topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 6 Months from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months.

His block still exists. Still he violates ban and defend himself with comments like this

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.112.79.39.220 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First Sir, have the courage to use your actual ID to report me. I dont think, a sock should be allowed to report registered users. Anyways, I have explained this earlier and will try it again; my topic ban relates to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. Now, I dont understand how does editing a page regarding a terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba falls under Pakistani politics and how does a terror attack in India 2015 Gurdaspur attack which (initially) had nothing to do with Pakistan has to do with Indo-Pak conflict? From what I understand is banned from Indo-Pak Conflicts means is that I cannot edit articles like Siachen Conflict, Kargil Conflict, 1965 Indo-Pak War etc where actual war/conflict is taking place.

The edit I made at Gurdaspur Attack was 'As per MHA sources, 2 x GPS, 3 x AK-47, 10 x magazines and 2 x China-made grenades were recovered from the terrorists' i.e. added just the basic info which was non-controversial. I was reported to Admin FPAS talk page by showing only one edit to made it look like as if I am doing something wrong. FPAS being busy responded quickly without actually confirming that I was violating my topic ban as he did not review the entire issue as he was committed elsewhere. Resultantly, I asked him a simple question:

So what you want to say is that in future ANY terrorist attack on Indian soil (which is condemnable), even like that carried out in Manipur by rebels in Mayanmar, will automatically fall within the scope of Indo-Pak conflict, because it ultimately will end up being supposedly supported by some terror group linked to Pakistan? This sir is a huge statement. Since when did Admins at Wikipedia have started speaking the language of Indian External Affairs Ministry?

As FPAS is still busy, he hasnt responded to the comment. So, I ask here again, will any future terror attack taking place in India be taken as a conflict between India and Pakistan? Or may be till the time India does not accuse Pakistan for orchestrating the attack, I could edit the page as till then it would not have become a conflict between the two countries, because the time between a terror attack in India and India accusing Pakistan for the same is with hours? Please explain? If it is the former, so what editors at Wikipedia want to say is that even before pakistan's hand is established behind an attack, all terror attacks in India will by default be assumed to be supported by Pakistan and thus by this definition, all such pages will fall under the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, and thus within my topic-ban?

As for LeT, how does a page related to a terror org, like LeT, like the LTTE in Sri Lanka, ISIS in Yemen, Sikh Seperatists and numerous others in India etc are all linked to the politics of the respective countries. I am confused and seek advice. If I am told and clarified by the respected Admins that by the edits being quoted against me, I was infact violating by ban, I'll happily admit to my mistake as I did not consider doing so was wrong, and will refrain from such edits in future. Thanks.

Lastly, or the Indian socks and tag-teamers who wants to show that I cant live with my topic ban, my edit history, post my topic ban begs to disagree:

• Territorial claims in the Arctic
• My Trip Back to the Dark Side (film)
• Kim Yo-jong
• Chappie (film)
• Frequencies (film)
• Sabeen Mahmud
• Benjamin Sisters
• Javed Iqbal Ramday
• Central Superior Services of Pakistan—TripWire ^talk 12:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This needs admins attention. This user has been blatantly violated topic ban several times even after several warnings. One can read latest advice by admin FPAS User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Topic ban violation. He is busy. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou sir, for repeating the 'same' words as by the IP one more time. You think repeating it will make it true? BTW, you claimed that I have "been blatantly violated topic ban several times", so please why dont you tell the admins when was the last time I have edited a topic which you for now presumingly believe falls within my topic ban? As I have requested you earlier, that you need to stop lying and exaggerating the 'facts'—TripWire ^talk 13:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned it itself, sir. You think that India thinks that all terrorist attacks in India are related to Pakistan, and because of that, it is part of an India-Pakistan conflict, and this means your topic ban applies. Besides, topic bans are broadly construed. Violating topic bans may result in an extension of that ban, a block, including an indefinite block... If you think a topic ban is unjustified, don't violate it, or try to circumvent it, but appeal it.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So sir, what you are trying to say is that because any attack in India, will automatically, by default, without any investigation, without any proof, without any recourse to any legal proceedings will have to be understood (internationally and among ALL editors of Wikipedia and Admins) to be orchestrated by Pakistan, so it falls under Indo-Pak Conflict? WOW! I will say that same thing what i said to FPAS, ' that's a huge statement sir', not to mention a clear violation of WP:NPOV and numerous other wiki polices. BTW, would the attack carried out by Manipur Rebels in Manipur, India recently by the rebels operation from the Indo-Mayanmar Border, to which India responded by carryingout a hot pursuit operation inside Mayanmar, also included in the definition of topic-ban provided by you? Thanks —TripWire ^talk 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Important Question to Admins (and sock IP)

I am being accused of violating by Topic Ban related to Indo-Pak Conflict pages by editing 2015 Gurdaspur attack page. But please consider:

• 2015 Gurdaspur attack occurred at 5:30am on 27 July 2015.
• The 2015 Gurdaspur attack was created on same day at 08:44 am
• Till then it was an unfortunate attack on Indian soil, no terror group claimed responsibility, no one knew who was behind the attacks.
• Later it was known that one of the attackers seemed like a Sikh, and thus the possibility of Khalistan Movement surfaced.
• I made my first edit at the page at 02:28, 28 July 2015, approximately 24 hrs after the attack.
• Till then Pakistan had not been brought into the mix, so the question, how and when did this page started falling withing the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, a topic I am banned to edit?
• The first mention of Pakistan at the page was made at 21:44, 28 July 2015. This was usual Indian rehtoric of accusing Pakistan everytime a terror attack happens in India. This time it was a shot in the dark as unlike let's say Mumbai Attacks where India had a confession of Ajmal Kasb, thereby giving credence to the Indian claim, this time the accusation was blank, vague and to date unproven. So the second question: Did this ACCUSATION make 2015 Gurdaspur attack page an Indo-Pak Conflict topic, may be? If so, then I would respectfully ask the Admins the same question I asked from FPAS at his talk page, but I am not going to repeat it here.
• Please, I request, help me understand how (and when) does a terror attack in India becomes a topic of Indo-Pak Conflict? What's the criteria, how should I gauge that a page I am editing is a Conflict page, because the line is quite thin here and personal vendettas quite high. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Read above comment, you disagree on "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts" thats why it is part of India-Pakistan conflict. And what about your edits on NGO Lashkar-e-Taiba? I demand strict action on this user. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You, as been highlighted numerous times, are an exaggerator and a manipulator. You are again lying by saying that I "disagree on Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts", can you prove it sir? Which edit of mine made you think that I am against it? Did I remove ANY info related to this? Did I challenge this accusation by India? The only thing I changed in the line quoted by you is that India 'alleged' that Pakistan is behind the attacks, what's wrong with that? Isnt it an accusation as of now or you as per habitual WP:NPOV pusher wants to state this as a FACT? The other edit I made was to add the fact that Indian authorities mistakenly thought one of the attackers to be a Sikh, is that wrong to? Is it not factual or supported by Indian sources? Or by highlighting that India retracted a mistake well in time and instead accused Pakistan, didnt I actually support the Indian POV as opposed to your accusation that I am against "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts"? Wake up Sir! You in your frustration against me, have crossed all bounds of morality.—TripWire ^talk 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taibar is clearly related to Pakistan, so it is a forbidden article. A topic ban is a topic ban. Not from an article, but from everything related to that topic, broadly construed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Related to Pakistan, not Pakistani Politics. Broadly construed is OK, but making it so broad that anything which has a word Pakistan in it is banned for me is not. If that had been the case, FPAS could have very easily said in by Ban that I am not allowed to edit ANY topic related to Pakistan (alone). Infact, that's the clarification I am trying to seek here from respected Admins. I can be wrong, and I dont mind if I am corrected by Admins.—TripWire ^talk 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Immediately after his ban, TripWire filed a request to lift his ban, which was not even replied and ultimately rejected. You were banned for India-Pakistan conflicts which includes Lashkar e taiba as this terror group launches attack against India every week.112.79.39.111 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny. Ref: as this terror group launches attack against India every week: and this far-fetched accusation makes it a topic of Pakistani Politics/Conflict? Sir, excellent attempt at pushing a WP:NPOV. BTW, did you muster the courage to login? Admins sirs, is it fair to be reported by a sock/SPA? —TripWire ^talk 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

While I will defer to admins more familiar with the India-Pakistan area and topic bans more generally, this does appear to me to be a violation of the topic ban. Edits such as this and this are clearly on topics related to India-Pakistan conflicts. It doesn't really matter, in my opinion, whether it had yet been confirmed that the attacks were carried out by people from Pakistan; I think the fact that a link was being considered brings the topic within the India-Pakistan conflicts topic. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: If an article mentions both Pakistan and India and covers violence or religious strife or political or military wranglings you are topic-banned from that article. Lashkar-e-Taiba emphatically falls under your topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...So sir I have been wrong all along?? Darn! May be I was taking the ban wording too literally. —TripWire ^talk 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: It's not a good idea to test the boundaries of a topic ban. If there's any doubt, ask an admin familiar with the matter before you start editing. But these queries should be reserved for non-obvious cases. Lashkar-e-Taiba is an obvious case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I do find it hard to believe that you would think your topic ban didn't cover articles like Lashkar-e-Taiba or in conflict-related articles where a link between India and Pakistan is being discussed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, all along my argument regarding LeT had been that it did not fell under "Pakistani Politics", now it seems that it is connected to Indo-pak Conflict?! Ouch!—TripWire ^talk 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the ban appeal

I noticed someone mentioned a denied ban appeal.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177#Result_of_the_appeal_by_TripWire Ban Appeal) And then I noticed the following: Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't answer or explain his actions in the appeal despite notice, and the appeal was automatically archived after 7 days. This is disappointing. Future Perfect at Sunrise was active during that time. This behaviour seems to be contrary to WP:ADMINACCT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for saying what I couldnt. I am being continoulsy mocked that I didnt even worth a reply on my ban appeal and thus (ironically) my ban was justified. Sir Neil has suggested that I should have asked an Admin if I was in doubt 9which I was). Seriously, I may be wrong in saying so, but I will not fall down to a level where I approach the same admin who did not even bother to reply to my appeal. On a seond thought, I should have approached FPAS, but whereas I do enjoy my edits at Wikipedia, but it is not a matter of life or death to me. I exercised my right of appeal, it went unanswered, which in itself was insulting, if taken in that sense, I am sorry, if resultantly I didnt feel comfortable to interact with the same Admin. I could have also approached another admin, but for the same reason, I found it rather belittling that I am knocking at a door, only to find out that it remains unopened. The only reason behind my latest interaction with FPAS at his talk page was because I was forced by Human3015 to respond there when he reported me to FPAS. BTW, FPAS didnt even then respond to me, but made a hasty reply to Human3015 alone, which again was taken with a heavy heart by me. But still, I understand that being an Admin is a thankless job, and I hold no grudges. We are all here to improve this website, will try to do that, till I am permitted to do that. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• @TripWire: If someone has not replied to your ban appeal then it doesn't mean that you are allowed to violate your topic ban. That can be different discussion and should not be discussed on this thread, @Müdigkeit: this is the issue of WP:AE. Here we are discussing current topic ban violations by TripWire. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think this is related to that. TripWire had the right to appeal, and it is obvious that right was not fully exercised or granted as no one even replied on the thread. I think we all ought to sit back and re-visit the original ban. It would be good if the previous appeal could be de-archived and the involved admin/editors could add in their thoughts. After all, it's meant to be preventable, not punitive. And to be honest, TripWire isn't really doing anything different than what the POV pushers on the other side of the fence are doing. Perhaps sanctions should be applied equally. Mar4d (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It is not just you who thinks in that way, even I wanted that his appeal should have been replied, I said this in my long advice on TripWire's talk page see last line. But apparently his appeal could have been refused. His behaviour is such that even you yourself describing his behaviour as "POV Pusher". He has done many mistakes even after his topic ban. Even if we de-archive or re-open his case still again no one will comment on his appeal. Or even if someone comment on it still it will end up in deny. It will hurt TripWire again. And I agree on you that "POV pushers" of "both" sides should be banned. These POV pushers are ruining Wikipedia. When we are busy in any project these POV pushers and Socks unnecessarily attracts our attention and we end up in wasting our time and we also lose our interest in that topic. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  02:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, please stop patronizing me. What you call advice was more of a mockery whereby you showed your true colors. You were the first one to 'enjoy' that my ban appeal went out without a discussion. Stop lying for once!—TripWire ^talk 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 and Sock IPs

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

---

While we are at it, I'd like to make few observations:

• Human3015 has a weiered habit of showing emphathy with established socks and vice versa.
• I wonder why is it that whenever I have been in discussion with Human3015, a sock or a SPA appears from nowhere and attempts at disrupting my contributions. The fact that I have been reported by a (sock) IP for topic-ban vio here is a point to note. Especially, when Human3015 falsely and in pure bad-faith reported me for 3RR vio, and when it was seen in the discussion there that it is not going to yield results as per Human's wishes, this socks appears and reports me here.
• Point to note is that the last edit I made at LeT page was at 00:23, 3 August 2015 and the last edit made by me on 2015 Gurdaspur attack was at 20:30, 2 August 2015. Thereafter when I was told that I might be violating my topic-ban, I stopped from editing both the topics. But, still I get reported by the sock IP today on 5 August (after it was seen that the false report against me for 3RR was likely to backfire, with a likelihood of some action against Human as he used a 2-days-old edit by me to force compile 3RR volition)??

• This is not the first time this has happened. I was reported by Human for SPI upon 'suggestion' by an established sockmaster. Human, instead of ignoring the sock, gladly acknowledged the Sock's suggestion and obliged by reporting me for SPI. The result of SPI was also not as per Human's wishes, but no action was taken against Human for accusing me of socking that too upon suggestion by a sock - fathom the irony!

• Just yesterday, when Human and I were having a discussion at Talk:Desi daru, and when Human was unable to prove his point, another sock/SPA appeared from nowhere and vandalized my talk page twice while I was amidst the discussion with Human.

• I wonder why is it that established socks/sockmaster always approach Human for help? Is it just a coincidence that socks are in communication with Human, that socks recommend to him to report me for false SPI, that I get reported by a sock IP again here on the eve of sanctions on Human for falsely reporting me for 3RR? Food for thought.—TripWire ^talk 18:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want to allege that another user is a sockpuppet then file an SPI. Sam Walton (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know from where these IPs appear whenever I have discussion with TripWire. My talk page has always been attacked by both Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani IPs. And both of these group of IPs are socks of different sockmasters. As usual TripWire told you half story, now I will tell you another story, [114], [115], [116] Here one IP is abusing me in local language saying "What conspiracy you did to get me topic banned for 6 months?, did you e-mail admin FPAS to provoke him to get me topic banned?. Don't touch Pakistan related articles for 6 months till my ban is over". I will not translate abusive words. I have never even thought that it is sock of TripWire, I have not even complained or discussed it with anyone. I just left this matter. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

I have noticed that on some "list of programs broadcast by network" articles that User:TheRedPenOfDoom has added tags to upcoming programming sections that claim there is undue weight and advertising.

For one, how on earth can listing upcoming programming lend undue weight to articles, if there are currently and formerly broadcast sections? Secondly, @Manoflogan: stated the content in question is not promotional material as long as it is cited with proper sources, in this case, most of it is. Yet TheRedPenOfDoom went on his delusional crusade anyway. (please read User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding Upcoming Series on Zee Zindagi for more info)

This user is obviously crazy to believe that upcoming programming lends undue weight and is advertising, source or no source. He is continuing to uphold this even after I had reverted his tagging. I personally feel that an indefinite block or ban is needed at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD started discussions on the addition of the Undue tag on the article talk pages where you were edit-warring. It would preferable to try to come to a resolution by discussing this difference of opinion with other editors before turning to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Personally, I feel TRPoD's claims of undue weight and advertising are invalid, yet he's running with them anyway. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You might be correct about the content but it's best to get a consensus on the article talk pages. It looks like a discussion is occurring at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi although it is heated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Extracted the following from the discussion:

Wikipedia admin Cyphoidbomb has given his opinion that he does not mind the presence of Future Programming as long as there is a valid source of reference. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding_Upcoming_Series_on_Zee_Zindagi. I am therefore going to remove the two warnings that you inserted. He/She also mentioned that it is a standard template for television network programming. If you have any issues, you can take it up with him/her. But from now on, please refrain from adding warnings just because you object to the sections or their referenced content. In addition, please don't go about putting the warnings back again.

Like Manoflogan, I removed the templates from the articles. However, TRPoD re-added them almost immediately. Like I keep saying, the edits do not appear to have been made in good faith. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Delusional crusade"? "This user is obviously crazy"? Electricburst1996, you need to step back from the edge of the cliff pronto.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit too much... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really doesn't seem like something that warrants actions anywhere near an indefinite block or ban. Article talk pages are there for a reason. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If the Guinness Book of Records has an entry for "dragged most times to ANI for manifestly invalid reasons" then TRPoD would own it. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, an AN/I complaint that says "this user is obviously crazy" had really better be confident that the user complained of is obviously crazy. Good faith does not invariably mean "agreeing with me". I'm disturbed about the way targeted editors are dragged into this sort of thing over and over again, and would not be surprised to find that this is yet more spillover from TRPoD’s previous persecutors. The community should give TRPoD a firm assurance that, barring actions that actually are "obviously crazy", these repeated complaints will be ignored or boomeranged; that sort of assurance would go a long way toward defusing the tension. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst not being a proof of sanity, or otherwise, can anyone list off some article where RedPen's efforts have been held up as an example of good editing? This is an editor with a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, across every article I've ever seen them at. They have formal restrictions against them because of this on the Gamergate issue. In particular, they have a messianic belief in their personal absolute correctness, no matter what.

Although I'm seeing some hyperbole from Electricburst1996 here, it's not hard to see how RedPen has inspired it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may chime in my two cents here, I think Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head here. I agree that Electricburst1996 is over reacting, and using some rather hyperbolic language, but there is also something to be said for the fact that users across the board are constantly taking issue with the same user, over and over again. Even if one assumes some of these complaints are simply sock puppets, surely they aren't ALL. Seems to me that at a certain point TRPoD should take some responsibility for this as well.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD does a valuable job in pruning back the dross that tends to accumulate in articles. In a project where some people think that every passing mention of a thing, in every single medium, however trivial, deserves its own section in the top-level article, we do actually need cruft-pruners. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And that's a free ride to behave however he wants? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence supplied by long-term abusers who get special treatment because of their perceived good content work would suggest yes it is. I make no comment on if that is a good or a bad thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute at the heart of this. One party is engaging on the talk page, which is what you're supposed to do, while the other is running to this page which is intended for reporting serious conduct issues, crying "bad faith" rather than engage in discussion to resolve the content dispute. The latter behaviour tends to be frowned upon. --TS 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I left a message on TRPoD's talk page in an attempt to resolve the issue. I'll report back tomorrow to see how it goes. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 02:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that this started with edit warring to remove tags that state " Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." and then violations of WP:TPG by blanking the discussion from the talk page and then [117] blatantly violate WP:NPA while simultaneously accusing me of acting in bad faith, I think it is pretty clear where the bad faith editing is emanating from in this instance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I frequently run into TRPOD at problematic articles related to Indian/Pakistani entertainment. Typically I agree with his staunch anti-fluff attitude, however in this case I disagree with him. The inclusion of upcoming programs in a List of programs broadcast by... article is standard operating procedure if the content can be sourced. Rather than templating individual articles with badges of shame, I think the better approach might be for him to approach WikiProject Television and start the discussion there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to New Jersey Devils related articles

Look at this history. We have several IPs making changes and several established editors reverting them.

The IP edits look cack-handed at best, but not really vandalism. I see no attempt to discuss it... although I get the impression that the established users have been here before and think this may be socks of people who have been causing problems before.

Anyone familiar with the history and want to intervene?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For relevant history, see this previous incident report which led to an editor block, Talk:1994–95 New Jersey Devils season and the discussion threads to which the last two sections link, and Talk:1993–94 New York Rangers season to see many attempts at discussion and the stream of edit requests that have been made which lack specific details (the talk page history contains more edit requests that have been deleted). isaacl (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior and Editing, HughD

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

---

HughD's edits in pages related to Americans for Prosperity (AfP) and the Koch family are highly disruptive WP:DE. This disruptive behavior is exhibited through bludgeoning the talk pages, a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality towards those who agree and disagree with him, WP:HOUNDing those who disagree with him, behaving as if he WP:OWNed the talk pages and WP:GAMEing the system to get what he wants. This is a clear pattern of recent disruptive behavior.

Bludgeoning WP:BLUDGEON HughD has flooded the talk page of AfP. HughD has posted 393 of the 1105 total posts on the talk page. [[118]]. In a recent ANI [[119]] related to an RfC HughD posted on the AfP talk page, HughD posted 29 times. All others posted 35 times (64 total posts at this writing).

Battlefield WP:BATTLEFIELD HughD hounds those who don't agree with his POV while profusely thanking and/or praising those who do. This harms consensus building by creating an us vs them mentality. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS

• Praising those who agree: [[120]][[121]]

Also see the use of the "thank" function: [[122]]

• Demanding answers of those who don't agree (including posting on their User:Talk pages when they don't reply in the talk pages): [[123]],[[124]],[[125]],[[126]],[[127]][[128]][[129]][[130]][[131]]

Gaming[(related rule) ] Attempting to use user NPOV concerns regarding a RfC as evidence that there is a consensus to extend the RfC deadline:[[132]][[133]][[134]]

Hounding WP:HOUND Carrying the debate to unrelated pages:

• User talk pages:[[135]][[136]][[137]]
• Talk page of a user's sandbox:[[138]]

Ownership Moving the comments of others without permission [[139]

I request a topic block for HughD on all Koch related pages/topics. Springee (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidences after posting this ANI: Gaming Please add this recent edit claiming I support holding off closing a RfC. [[140]] Springee (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding Having made it clear here [[141]] that I do not support an attempt to extend HughD's RfC, the editor again replies on my talk page instead of on the noticeboard page. [[142]] Springee (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial statement of reported editor

"flooded the talk page of AfP Talk:Americans for Prosperity" In March 2015 I and some collaborators noticed that Americans for Prosperity was severely non-neutral with respect to reliable sources, for example, making no mention of the Tea Party movement and just one mention of the Kochs; please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#Tea_Party. Some collaborators initiated a good article effort. In mid June 2015, as the article approached the completeness of coverage of reliable sources required by good article criteria, the article attracted increased critical attention, and several editors expressed their preference for an incomplete article rather than a good article through deletion of noteworthy neutral content and reliable sources. Americans for Prosperity is at the intersection of several active arbitration committee findings, including WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, broadly construed. Multiple threads of talk page discussion, including an RfC discussion, have been vigorous. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"In a recent ANI ... posted 29 times." I respectfully decline to respond to the charge of commenting 29 times at an ANI report filed against me last week by the same reporting user. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Praising those who agree" I'm sorry, I don't see any praise at the diffs provided by the reporting user; I find expressions of gratitude and an offer of collaboration. In any case, I think I may not have praised the reporting user enough. I apologize for that, and I will attempt to praise the reporting user more even-handedly in the future. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"use of the thank function" I have even thanked the reporting user for some of their edits, but I think I may not have thanked the reporting user enough. I apologize for that, and I will attempt to thank the reporting user more even-handedly in the future. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Attempting to use user NPOV concerns regarding a RfC as evidence that there is a consensus to extend the RfC deadline" On 31 July, one week before the tentatively scheduled close of the RfC Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, the reporting user filed an ANI report including an expression of concern regarding the notification to WikiProject WP:CONSERVATISM; please see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC_spamming.2C_canvasing.2C_cross_posting._User:_HughD, above. Since there is no deadline, the option of extending through consensus authorized by WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs was suggested. The option was declined. The close was not delayed. I apologize for my mistaken belief that the reporting user was concerned about the notification of WP:CONSERVATISM. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Moving the comment" The RfC Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds was structured with a "Survey" section, to accommodate initial statements of position of collaborators, independent of a "Threaded discussion" section. One editor objected to a colleague's initial statement of position and interspersed a threaded comment into the "Survey" section. 1 August 2015 I respectfully asked the editor to move the comment from the "Survey" section to the "Threaded discussion" section. Three days later, hearing no objection, I moved the comment from the "Survey" section to the "Threaded discussion" section. When the move was reverted, I left it. I apologize for trying to tidy up the "Survey" section in preparation for the close. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugh (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Prosperity for the Koch Brothers, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Admin action is needed

Note that a previous complaint against Hugh by Springee is still active on this page and hasn't even been archived yet. This ANI complaint was filed against HughD almost exactly a month ago, by Champaign Supernova. There's also this AE request that Hugh filed against Arthur Rubin around the same time. This is one of those long, messy disputes that it can be difficult for un-involved editors and admins to wade into, but it has been going on for a month now, with conflict spilling over into numerous other noticeboards and pages. It's getting ridiculous.

As an involved party who agrees with HughD on most aspects of the content dispute, and who defended him in previous ANI complaints, I have slowly come around to the view that he is indeed editing disruptively. This is difficult to illustrate with a single diff, since the primary problem is the excessive number of posts that HughD has made to the talk page of Americans for Prosperity, many of which are carbon copies of each other and add little to the discussion. Some examples: [143][144][145][146][147]. Hugh seems to feel the need to respond to almost every post made on that talk page, and a lot of his comments are not constructive.

That said, I still think Hugh is editing in good faith, and I've suggested elsewhere, he has been fighting an effort to whitewash the Americans for Prosperity page in a way that is demonstrably inconsistent with reliable sources and NPOV. Hugh's conduct should not be examined in isolation, since there has been problematic editing on both sides of this dispute. Check out Guy Macon's battleground-y posts here and here, for example.

I suggest a formal warning - for HughD (disruptive editing, page ownership), with a block to follow if his problematic behavior does not improve. Warnings for some of the other involved editors might be needed as well (there's been an awful lot of battleground conduct, refusal to hear, and NPOV violations at Americans for Prosperity). Hopefully some judiciously applied warnings will be enough to get everyone in this dispute to calm the heck down and focus on content rather than politics & personality. At this point, they are very unlikely to do so without outside intervention. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fyddlestix, thank you for your input. You have far more involvement with the article than I so I think your view that others may have been baiting HughD should be taken into consideration. That said, [their behavior is not an excuse] for HughD's. In less than two months HughD has had two blocks [[148]], and 10 warnings of various types posted to his user talk page ([[149]][[150]][[151]][[152]][[153]][[154]][[155]][[156]][[157]][[158]]

He was also warned that the article in question is the subject of discretionary sanctions: [[159]] I don't think HughD can claim he wasn't warned. I believe it is clear that he is not interested in heeding the warnings hence I suggest a topic block. Time off might also be warranted but I think a longer term topic block is appropriate. Springee (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but the key thing for me is that almost all of those warnings came from people involved in the dispute (ie, Hugh's "opponents" in the debate). I think that a warning from a neutral, un-involved admin would do a lot more good than warnings from people who are knee-deep in the dispute.

Also, the warnings you linked are for other things (reverts, civility, etc), not for the comment spam, which is in my opinion the only thing that Hugh could justifiably face sanction for here. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be done?

HughD does seem to have a bee in his bonnet. That's not necessarily forbidden, but he gives an impression of a tiger on the loose. There's little doubt that if he does not tone down the rhetoric, he will be topic banned sooner rather than later. As far as the above request goes, does the admin community need to do anything more than simply point that out, at this stage? Guy (Help!) 09:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

When someone has two ANIs simultaneously running about them, unless they are being unfairly targeted/stalked, it seems to me they have become a disruption to the encyclopedia, and need an admin warning at least, or a sanction at best. Being a net disruption to the project means that someone is veering into being a net negative to Wikipedia, which would eventually mean longterm blocks. Hopefully the editor will avoid that fate by taking stock and re-orienting their behavior. And yes, at this point I think administrative analysis and action is required, even if the action is only a warning. Given his block log [160], I'm of the mind that a one-week block might actually be in order, if the analyzing admin believes a sanction is warranted. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: you wrote "two ANIs simultaneously." Two ANI filings by the same user in the closing week of a contenious RfC at a contenious article Americans for Prosperity which is squarely at the intersection WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. The first of these has yet to roll off above on this page at #RfC spamming, canvasing, cross posting. User: HughD. May I ask you, what is the disposition of the first of these two ANI filings above? May I ask you, how would you characterize the position of uninvolved commenters at the first of these two ANI filings above? May I ask you, what is your basis in policy or guideline of your view that two ANI filings against an editor, by the same user, constitutes disruption? Hugh (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I imposed on HughD a two-week topic ban related to the Americans for Prosperity RFC broadly. The RFC is closed so the only continued arguments would be about the closing or the RFC or whatever and I'm assuming that HughD will take the two weeks to let it go. No block so it's a lot of WP:ROPE for HughD to work off. Assuming it calms down a bit, else I'm leaning towards a topic ban that basically shuts HughD off until the election next year is over. I'll list it on the enforcement log. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, what is the grounds for this topic ban? May I ask in your reply that you please refer to specific behavior and specific policy and guideline. Your close of this ANI report is extraordinarily unhelpful. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: under WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2015#American_politics_2 you imposed a topic ban on the basis of "repeated incivility and disruptive behavior at Talk:Americans for Prosperity about content". Please be more specific about the "repeated incivility and disruptive behavior at Talk:Americans for Prosperity about content" you mention. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear that HugD is still allowed to respond to this ANI report.

I support a topic ban that basically shuts HughD off until the election next year is over, but Americans for Prosperity is not his hobby horse. The Koch brothers are. Right now HughD is showing an interest in Paul Singer (businessman). I predict that he will find articles about other political donors listed here to be of great interest in the months leading up to the US election.

As an aside concerning the Koch brothers, I could make a good case for the existence of three major factions. Whitewashers (want to suppress anything bad about the Koch brothers), Blackwashers (want to demonize the Koch brothers), and ordinary editors who want the articles to have a NPOV. Naturally, the ordinary editors are called whitewashers by the blackwashers and are called blackwashers by the whitewashers.... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary, and suggest closing this ANI

Here is the text of the topic ban just implemented:

HughD, upon reviewing the second ANI discussion, the first ANI discussion, Talk:Americans for Prosperity and the now arguments over the closing attempts at the RFC, I am now imposing a two-week topic ban against you on anything related to Americans for Prosperity. This including any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever. Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks, which will have zero overall affect in the campaign season long-term, will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space. I'd normally just block you and throw away the key as a way to calm the situation but instead I'm giving you a lot of rope (Fred Koch and whatever else are not included) as I'm presuming that you have enough sense not to try to argue the same things in other ways and you can conduct yourself on other articles without the same attitude and arguments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since HughD is topic-banned from this issue for two weeks, and therefore the ANI complaint is currently resolved, I suggest closing this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This text is extraordinarily useless. What is the specific behavioural basis and the specific policy that is the basis for this topic ban? Hugh (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"the first ANI discussion" What was the disposition of the ANI report you refer to? What was the consensus of uninvolved editors at the ANI report you refer to? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"the second ANI discussion" What in the ANI report you refer to in your view warrants a topic ban? please with specific reference to behavior, policy, and guideline. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"arguments over the closing attempts at the RFC" What is the basis for this? Please provide a diff and a link to policy or guideline. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please hold this open. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by 173.21.188.179

User:173.21.188.179 is continuing to edit war with User:5 albert square after being warned not to. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no edit warring from me as I haven't edited the page since 2nd August. I reverted them previously because I didn't see how edits like these could be construed as anything other than vandalism. The IP hasn't given a reason for reducing the image so when I came across the edit, after a report to AIV, it looked like vandalism to the untrained eye. They've reverted it again still not giving a reason as to why the size of the image should be changed so they're continuing their disruptive editing.--5 albert square (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you were not edit warring User:5 albert square. You did the right thing in my opinion. I was only referring to the user in the title. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6914:843B:E888:7228 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, it appears that the article the OP is referring to is Fornjot_(moon), but at any rate...Albert, the OP stated that only the IP is edit-warring, not you (but I do see how that can be misinterpreted). Anyway, I was about to note that the IP hasn't edited since receiving the most recent warning, but his/her talk page indicates that this is an ongoing issue (if all that represents the same person, that is). Maybe a longer block is warranted? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with having this user blocked for a longer period of time. Is everybody on board with that decision. 2602:306:3357:BA0:14B8:B3F4:8A0:185E (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cruks

It doesn't appears to me that the above editor is here to build an encyclopedia. I never noticed their disruptive behavior until I found this ridiculous warning on Jamie Tubers's talk page. I responded to them here explaining to them why the user's edit did not constitute vandalism and User:Cruks quickly left this irrelevant note on my talk page that my revert on the article, List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth is not useful even when I never reverted anything that changed the list. I responded here telling them why the List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth should not only be on the list of Nigerian billionaire compiled in 2015 but also other years. They responded here that I shouldn't treated them unfairly simply because they want to justified their action. I edited the article, List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth here to enhance the inclusion of "list of Nigerian billionaires" compiled in other years to reflect the title but they abysmally reverted my edit. When I checked through their talk page history, I discovered that the editor is problematic. Last week, they created Declan Costello (economist), a blatant copyvio that was speedy deleted per G12 by User:Jimfbleak. A day before the page was deleted, I found this warning] by JMHamo on their talk page regarding an edit warring on Morgan Schneiderlin. I also saw this warning on their talk for not been using the edit summary. There are also several warning on their talk page regarding the addition of poor sources to article such as this one. When I considered all this misconduct, I really don't think that this editor can contribute usefully to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disney

Can someone who knows more about Disney than I do review the latest edits by User:46.208.198.222. There seems to have been a bunch of previous Disney edits by this IP reverted, but it is beyond my Disney-fu to tell whether these are good, bad or indifferent edits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

I had a look and did what I could. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Topic ban for Aubmn

Whether here or WP:AN is the best place for this, I propose a topic ban for Aubmn (talk · contribs) with regard to the Marie Antoinette article. Aubmn's problematic editing at that article has been documented by various editors. For a WP:Diff-link to the evidence, see here and keep scrolling downward. Each section following that is one about Aubmn's problematic editing. And that problematic editing includes WP:Copyright violations, falsifying text, hard-to-read text, WP:Edit warring, WP:Socking and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. NebY and I, especially NebY, first tried to deal with all of it. Then more editors took notice and tried to deal with all of it. Eventually, Saddhiyama brought the matter to WP:ANI earlier this year; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry. Since then, Blue Indigo (talk · contribs) has been trying to help out with the article and deal with Aubmn's problematic editing; he brought the matter to my talk page, as seen jhere and here, and I eventually suggested that he bring the case here to WP:ANI himself. Seeing that NeilN has WP:Full protected the article (see this link), and that Blue Indigo is understandably stressed because of Aubmn's problematic editing and that NeilN has been clear that he will block either of them for WP:Edit warring, I decided to follow through with reporting this case here. From Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)what I have seen of Aubmn's behavior, I don't think he should be editing Wikipedia at all. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me, more than a year ago I began editing Marie Antoinette article who was on the watchlist of Flyer and who was left incomplete since 2012 and relying on one source Fraser, I was still an editor who didn't know about copyright s rules or a lot of rules in Wikepedia, I removed myself all the copyright violations and began editing by counting first on Fraser and completing the article specially the revolutionary period who was largely left unfinished since 2012. After that many editors came to work on the article , unfortunately the negative behaviour of Neb and Flyer22 let many of these editors to feel empowered and they wanted me completely out of the article after first proposing to work with me; krobison 13 was the first one, he himself acknowledge that he knew little about the subject , yet flyer and Neb wanted to give him complete control over the article, when we were left alone without the negativity and harrasment of Flyer and Neb, I was able to work with krobison who made hundred of edits in the article without interference from me, we have your differences who where solved when Krobison wanted to remove the 14 of July the most important event of that period. Blue Indigo refused to work with me from the beginning although I proposed to him twice on his talk page , he reverted 90% of my edits, I accepted 90 % of his edits (see per talk page). Aubmn (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I will talk of the last edit about the necklace scandal, Blue Indigo removed my contribution completely while I kept his contribution who was not based on the role of MA and when I tried to add my contribution without removing his, he removed it again as he felt empowered by Flyer22 (see SoS, SoS 2) on Flyer talk page, in addition to all that Blue Indigo compared me to a panzer division on Flyer22 talk page with it reference to Nazism without any reaction from Flyer22, know Flyer is saying Blue Indigo is stressed. Aubmn (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC) I welcomed the involvement of NeilN who is an objective person trying to find solutions in the Talk Page; not behaving and taking a negative attitude like Flyer22. Finally I want to say I committed mistakes sometimes out of ignorance of the rules sometimes because of anger but the fact remained , I completed a major article on a major personality which was left incomplete since 2012 and second I listened to many editors including Neb who told me the main weakness of this article is on it reliance on one source Fraser, I provided a solution to this problem by adding dozen of references to this article using the most important historians of MA like Castelot, Lever, Zweig and many others. I m not stressed like Blue Indigo because edit warring was mainly from his side and I believe in talking, cooperation and compromise ,,as an example I opened a new section in Napoleon article about education and I reached compromises with the editors there who were behaving in a positive way. Finally yes I committed some mistakes,I panicked sometimes not knowing about the rules but my intentions were good and positive, in the end I provided information's for a major article unfinished since 2012 and I removed its main weakness by giving it many sources instead of one. Know I trust NeilN and I m ready to follow any arbitration decided by him or her on MA talk page.Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Aubmn (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Note: Anyone wanting to know how I initially addressed Aubmn can see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Aubmn: Marie Antoinette article. Judge whether or not that matches up with his assertion that "Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me." As seen there, I asked him clearly about copyright violations, and he was dishonest. Unless he didn't know what copyright violations are, he should have known what I meant. The WP:Copyright violations policy is just adhering to what the law does. Yes, there are very likely WP:Copyright violations still in that article because of Aubmn. And any negative attitude I've had toward Aubmn has concerned his WP:Disruptive editing. Feel free to look for any way that I have been inappropriate with Aubmn. I will ignore his mischaracterization of me and others in this thread from here on out. I'll leave the rest of this to the community to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The talk page shows a long history of problematic edits including copyright violations, and strong evidence of WP:OWN. The claim that text is "information" and therefore sacrosanct, is a hallmark of POV-pushers. I think a topic ban is in order. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

First about copyright violations,when I knew the law, I removed not only those I put which Flyer and Neby acknowledged they couldn't find them, I also removed hundred of copyright violations and paraphrasing from the test which were present before my contributions.

Second what is called ownership is first simply the absence of many editors for years to deal with this article, krobison 13 made hundred of edits without any interruption from me, Blue Indigo made hundred of edits who were left unchanged, the problem is like the diamont necklace show he removed my contribution, I kept his.

Third, I added many references to an article who was counting on one reference.

Fourth, frankly I 'm tired, I have a very beautiful life outside Wikipedia, if 'm banned I'll stop my work as an editor and concentrate more on my real life which is the cornstone of my existense, because I never spent more than one hour or two on Wikepedia everyday; perhaps that is the best for me, anyway whatever happen I want to thank NeilN and all who have shown objectivity.Thank you all Aubmn (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You have such a single purpose here than if you can't edit that singular article, you'd quit? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. From the MA Talk page, this appears to be an ongoing problem that should have ended months ago. Lucky he isn't getting proposed for another block, which apparently would have been well warranted. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My friend Ricky I 'm tired, what do you expect, I finished a major article who was incomplete and depending on one source; I was lucky that I was able to complete it and also to provide many sources so the article don't 'depend on one source. I 'm not very interested in adding a few lines to other articles who are almost complete and to face the same scenarios. Unfortunately this is the kind of policy that is driving editors away from Wikipedia which is also losing a lot of readers. I' m going to Monte Carlo with my beautiful girlfriend and I don't need all of this. Thank you for all,a last notice NeilN said on MA talk page flyer22 put words from her mouth, I think that resume the person.Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed, per WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.- MrX 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK making the decision easier and making you not loose more time, first I want to thank all people of good faith who collaborated with me, second unfortunately Wikipedia is losing it appeal and all studies are showing that the reading of its articles is going down in a very dramatic way ; I 'm logging myself out of Wikipedia as an editor, I m not like Blue indigo afraid of being quicked out., I have a life better outside Gentlemen and Ladies, anyway wish you luck. Aubmn (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support up to 6 month topic ban (uninvolved non admin) There is some problematic behaviour. Suggest 6 months is long enough for this relatively inexperienced editor to try and learn more about WP and to stay out of trouble. I would also suggest that they learn not to focus on one specific article. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and COI Edits

There has been a lot of sockpuppetry and Conflict of Interest violations going on at the page La Salle College High School. Most of these edits seem to be the result of a "public relations" campaign by the school to clean up their image in the wake of a semi-recent scandal of a Priest at this Catholic School saying Mass by a swimming pool. Many Catholic newspapers and blogs covered the incident, so it is certainly notable and verifiable. The school is simply trying to clean up its image, a clear violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policies. This is not the first time the school has withstood scrutiny for its editing and advertisement of its Wikipedia Page. As this talk page notes, all content put on the page in question is scrutinized by La Salle's director of communications, Mr. Christopher Caribello.

Additionally, there are two other subsets of problems that are notable, those being that
1.) The school is using sockpuppet accounts run by school, as well as directors of communication Christopher Caribello and Braden Bonner, and that
2.) These sockpuppet accounts are repeatedly violating the 3 Revert Rule.

Please investigate this and take any action that is appropriate, including possible protection, dispute mediation, and a sockpuppetry investigation, which has already been opened at the appropriate page. I also would like to propose a WP:Topic Ban against any sockpuppets from the school editing the school's page in light of the recent troubling public-relations and advertising that has been going on.

I believe these accounts are related:

Braden.bonner (Director of Communications Braden Bonner)
8605Cheltenham (Director of Communications Christopher Caribello) (8605 Cheltenham is the school's address)
206.169.237.5 (IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
167.220.104.218 (Another IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
2601:44:8501:b3e0:30f5:792c:7be7:df64 (Another IP editor related to the school)
50.199.67.44 (Another IP editor possibly related to the school)

70.192.131.83 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on the "pool mass" had one ref which didn't mention the subject, and the remaining refs were all blogs or other unreliable sources, so it has been deleted again. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... and I see that the sockpuppetry aspects have been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Braden.bonner. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• David Biddulph, I encourage you to leave a note on that talk page in case this isn't over. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and harassment by 8.39.228.13

8.39.228.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP made their first edit to Shooting of Samuel DuBose on 30 July. They had 25 total edits prior to that, going back to September of last year (assuming they are all the same person). Everything was cool for awhile after they joined the DuBose article. Then, around 3 August, their editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes. In article talk, I asked them to "Slow ... down. Please." When they continued, I issued a template warning for DE on 3 August, and another 12 hours later, referring to their then-current style as "steamrolling the article". I am not providing diffs for the events up to this point because they are not relevant to this report. Even if my handling of the situation was incorrect, and I don't feel it was, that would not justify or even mitigate what has followed.

The IP's editing style then became less aggressive, and I have had no complaints about it since then. However, the IP started an article talk thread about biased editing by other editors, specifically me, and was advised by another editor to observe WP:AGF. Their tone in discussion has often been confrontational, with comments like, You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I? I won't say the IP is WP:NOTHERE, but they are not here to collaborate peacefully and cooperatively.

But the main reason I'm making this report is that the IP has continued their article talk criticisms of me, which are both unfounded and inappropriate, amounting to harassment. They have accused me in article talk of "dominating" discussion and POV-pushing, of "whitewashing". They started a second thread in article talk specifically about me, presenting statistics that apparently show that I have the highest edit count for that article and its talk page, as if that's something to be ashamed of (I'll take their word for it, as I didn't even bother to look at the statistics due to the patently ridiculous nature of the assertion). The thread was promptly closed as inappropriate use of article talk. As far as I know there is no limit on discussion on an article talk page, nor does the community recognize a concept of over-participation. I certainly do not exhibit any WP:OWN behavior in that article or any other, and I have never had any complaints about POV-pushing. The IP has repeatedly been advised by me and others to take any misconduct complaints about me to this page or user talk, but they have not done so. As far as I know, they are completely alone in their opinions about my participation, and that includes multiple experienced editors actively involved with the article, including MrX, Gaijin42, and Cwobeel. In any case, I'm not here to defend myself, this report is not about me, and any user is free to open a separate thread about my behavior.

Yesterday I posted on the IP's user talk page about the harassment, and also about WP:NOTFORUM after they took an RfC into off-topic discussion about bias in Wikipedia editing. I suggested that they consult an uninvolved third party about the whole issue. The response was more angry accusations and this threat: If you do not cease your whitewashing, I plan on compiling a list of specific instances of whitewashing in that article, publishing it in a separate Talk section in that article, and inviting others whose edits you have repeatedly reverted in other similar articles that you have disproportionately dominated (for example, in Shooting of Michael Brown), to weigh in with their feedback.

The IP's behavior is completely inappropriate, they have been an overall disruptive presence at an article that enjoyed relative peace before they arrived, warnings have not had any effect, and I don't see this situation getting any better by itself. So I am requesting a short block.

1 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Biased application of 'alleged'" naming me as the main culprit

2 - Article talk: "You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I?"

3 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Disproportionate number of edits made by Mandruss"

4 - Addition to the above thread: "I should note that your editing of this Talk page is even more disproportionate."

5 - Article talk: Direct accusation of biased editing against me, in the RfC

User talk:8.39.228.13 ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If not a block, the IP should at least receive a final warning to stop personalizing content disputes, and to use to proper channels for addressing alleged conduct issues. Secondary concerns are Original research and WP:NOTAFORUM, which the IP has been previously warned about as well. - MrX 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss is one of these editors that always collaborate and engage in useful discussions, we should have more like them. This IP editor, on the other hand, arrived to that article with an aggressive and un-compromising lack of good faith. The IP editor needs a super strong warning, with the hope they reconsider their approach. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, Cwobeel - can any of you provide diffs to substantiate the claim that my editing was "very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I never made any such claims.- MrX 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that, thank you. In response to your question, I'm asking you because those claims are central to this dispute, and you have commented on this dispute in support of Mandruss's position that I be disciplined. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have already clearly explained why there are no diffs for that. I'll try one more time, since the IP apparently has a hearing problem. First, that DE is not a basis for this complaint; I am not seeking a sanction as a result of that. The DE ceased roughly four days ago and sanctions are preventative not punitive. There is no question that I issued the template warnings, I don't need diffs to show that I did, and the only reason I mentioned that was that I believe it explains why the IP has been preoccupied with me since then. Second, even if my template warnings were inappropriate under those circumstances, that does not justify or excuse the IP's subsequent behavior. There is no justifiable repeated misuse of article talk, no justifiable repeated WP:FORUM discussion, no justifiable repeated confrontational talk behavior, and no justifiable harassment. That's my last attempt, if the IP still doesn't hear me, they never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you have claimed that my "editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." This is a falsehood. Not only did I not commit "a lot" of aggressive reverting, I didn't commit any. In fact, I intentionally refused to become involved in an edit war, instead taking my concerns to the Talk page. When I added a relevant, sufficiently-sourced phrase to the article about one of its subjects committing a violent crime, you whitewashed it. Now you want discussion of that sentence whitewashed from Talk, and you want me whitewashed from Wikipedia. Please either substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive editing or aggressive reverting, or edit your comment above to remove it. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am accountable to the community, not to you. You seem to harbor the mistaken impression that no sanction can occur unless I satisfy your endless demands for more information, responding to your every obtuse point or argument. That's not how it works here. As I said earlier, below (more hearing problem), others are free to ping me if more information is required from me. Your arguments are unimpressive and this is my last comment to you in this report. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Response

Zero evidence of disruptive editing to the article has been provided. Mandruss claims that "they are not relevant to this report", but nothing could be more relevant. Accusations of disruptive article editing should be accompanied by links to article edit diffs. If no such links can be provided, then such an accusation should be retracted.

Mandruss has pursued an agenda of whitewashing the Shooting of Samuel DuBose article, repeatedly reverting well sourced claims that present one of the article subjects in a negative light. He has even stated about one of the article subjects: ""Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets."" [161]. Our job is to honestly report on the events that the article covers, and not conceal relevant information because "the more we say the worse it gets". I am not completely alone in my concern. For example, Gaijin42, who is mentioned above, said: ""Presenting information that looks poorly on DuBose is not an attempt to shift blame, it is honest reporting, and hiding it makes it look like we are trying to whitewash him/bandwagon on Tensing""[162].

Mandruss was the first to personally call me out by username/ip in the article's Talk section, under the "8.39.228.13 edit" section [163]. When I mentioned in a talk section that a disproportionate number of the edits were made by him, I also used it as an opportunity to repeatedly praise Mandruss, and encourage others to increase their editing activity to balance out the voice in the article.[164]. Mandruss characterized this as a "spurious attack thread" on my Talk page.[165]. When I asked him to substantiate this claim by pointing out what in that section was spurious, he didn't respond.

Mandruss has participated in WikiBullying by accusing me of steamrolling the article with zero substantiation, and threatening me with having my edit privileges revoked[166], while himself making a disproportionate number of edits on both the article and the talk page (29% of the edits to the article[167], and 46% of the edits to the Talk page[168]). I have refused to participate in aggressively editing or reverting the article, instead choosing to state my concerns on the Talk page.

I would be happy to compile a list of diffs documenting the whitewashing of this article.

Finally, I again request that diffs evidencing disruptive editing to the article by me be provided to substantiate the claim that I have participated in such activity. Thank you for considering my position. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, any issues about my behavior should be discussed separately and independently from those about yours. Even if you had any valid reason for complaint, one does not justify or excuse the other, and, as my parents taught me, two wrongs don't make a right. You steadfastly refused to come here with your complaints until you needed them to defend yourself here, to divert discussion from the issue at hand in this thread. I refuse to defend myself in this report, beyond what I have already said. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As your behavior is relevant to this conflict, and specifically to the accusations you have made against me, I feel it is fair and appropriate to mention that behavior here. Again, I encourage you to provide diffs to substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive edits to the article. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I decline, for the reasons stated. As I'm well aware that far too many of these ANI threads devolve into unproductive and extended pissing matches, I'll now leave this with the community and trust that the right thing will be done. Others are welcome to ping me if further input from me is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

Here, an anonymous editor has threatened me by saying that they will take legal action against me if I revert their edits again. Please block that IP. Here, I reverted their edits because they are trying to erase/hide a name. Now they replaced the name with a nickname. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor is currently under a 31-hour block but the editor is in the right in regards to WP:BLP. Saying that people are or were members of a band could be considered controversial (although this IP address may just care about marketing more than that). Under that basis, I've removed all the band members until someone can provide sources for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.

Once again there's an obtrusive editor over on the Frankfurt School talk page causing problems. The user is Ideloctober (talk) - all the usual symptoms are present: Brand new account. Demands the article be changed without providing any sources for their arguments or referring to any Wikipedia policies. Refuses to even visit the talk page guidelines. Has decided Wikipedia is part of a Marxist conspiracy, and is now putting in repeated edit requests and generally refusing to work with others (resistant to all attempts at explaining the purpose of Wikipedia's policies, even from editors more sympathetic to their personal viewpoint). Any aid in restricting this uncooperative editor from further disrupting the talk page would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool, you went here too. I never said Wikipedia was a "Marxist conspiracy", I said that you being given sole editing privileges on the article, while being an outspoken pro-Marxist Liberal who stated that Capitalism would not be permitted to be discussed in a positive way, is extremely biased and unfair. Calling the article a conspiracy theory has caused mass amounts of mockery and jeering by other groups and forums, as it's one of the most blatantly biased and skewed viewpoints I've ever seen on this website in my 10+ years of anonymous or accounted editing here. You, a Marxist, are the only one allowed to make changes to a section about Cultural Marxism, and forbid anyone from calling it more than an anti-semitic racist conspiracy theory. Your bias is sickening, and I suggest your editing privileges on said article be revoked, and that you be required to follow by the same rules you preach to the others. Your personal attacks (calling me and another anti-Semites for requesting a title edit?????) as well as your overt bias are both not permitted on Wikipedia. You are accomplishing nothing by attacking me and making fraudulent edits other than proving Leftist-Marxists as yourself are entirely opposed to free, unbiased speech and, as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol, Che, Castro, Sung, Jong-il, Jong-un, and every other Communist leader in history did, you too prefer censorship and false sources in order to promote your own agenda. That much is obvious. Ideloctober (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I remind you that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Marxist and you're not helping yourself attacking other editor's alleged bias. For both sides, diffs would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, without citing any sources, your arguments on the Frankfurt School talk page simply come across as whining. You say you have been on Wikipedia for years, so one would hope you're familiar with the concept of verifiability. And you use the phrase "neutral", so one would hope you understand that neutrality means reflecting what is written in reliable sources. Since you have provided no sources of your own, and given no serious comment on sources currently used, all you've done is expressed your personal displeasure with the viewpoints present in the article. Continuing in this manner will inevitably lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia, although continuing to assail Jobrot on a personal level may lead to that even sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I never called you an anti-semite. I have in fact explicitly stated that the conspiracy theory doesn't always boil down to anti-semitism (diff of that). Also I've said specifically that I don't have any special privileges here on Wikipedia (diff of that). I was certainly never given "sole editing privileges on the article" and that's not something likely to happen on Wikipedia. Please learn to respect Wikipedia's policies and processes if you wish to contribute.

As for Wikipedia inhibiting your free speech - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your free speech. Speech on Wikipedia is restricted to what adheres to Wikipedia's policies and sourcing requirements... which are there to ensure accuracy and verifiability. NOT to facilitate your personal opinions - or for that matter, MY personal opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and Ricky81682 hit the nail on the head. The rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims made by Ideloctober here on this page are troubling. When you accuse someone of making racist (or other types of slurs) comments, you should really provide the links to back that up. I personally could not find that. And when incredibly incorrect statements like an editor being given "sole editing privileges on the article" are made, that really hurts your credibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was contemplating coming here too about "Ideloctober"(who probably also edits logged out with 74.129.76.107. The edits at the George Lincoln Rockwell(An American Nazi) are also problematic. The sources used and edits there are definitely not compatible with Wiki policies. I don't believe any amount of discussion will persuade this editor. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic? Are we on Tumblr now? Never use the phrase 'problematic' unless you want to appear as a stereotypical eFeminist. My edits to Rockwell following a friend editing on the same local IP are sourced with one influential blog and two books both published by Universities. I know how to cite, I know how to source, and I've used them. There are articles with claims far less sourced than mine, and with all this evident Liberal backlash I'm beginning to doubt Wikipedia's true neutrality. There is no solid source that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, considering many other sources from the Right or Radical Right back it up. But you won't use those sources, will you? No. It's laden with Left, Marxist, and Progressive sources, which are all fine, but the Right is "too biased". Again, with the Liberal bias you allow to run rampant, perhaps this is why thatm ore than ever people don't take Wikipedia seriously. Sure, I think your "Progressive" agenda is the definition of backwards and wrong, but I'm not arguing to attack your ideas or include sources or comments attacking you, I just want neutrality, and you know as well as I do that passing Cultural Marxism off as a pure conspiracy theory by virtue of pro-Marxist sources alone is extremely biased, and it's befitting the agenda you're attempting to impose, Jobrot.

"Base and Sperstructure in the Marxist cultural Theory", Raymond Williams http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm The Free Congress also has many discourses on the topic.

But those are probably much too unfavoring of Marx for you to accept, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. The accusations of bias and personal attacks are out of control. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop focusing on Jobrot, start confining your comments to content and sources. You can do this, or abandon the topic area, or you can leave Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll abandon the topic area. Please wipe this section out whenever possible. I didn't mean to cause such a fight. Ideloctober (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has continued to take it upon themselves to make personal commentary/attacks against me elsewhere (specifically on their talk page). --Jobrot (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editor continues to use blogs(anthonyflood.com) for sources on the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Using blogs to claim that the US Government assassinated the American Nazi leader here(noncounterproductive.blogspot.com), same here, adds more conspiracy claims with another blog here(anthonyflood.com) and keeps adding again and again. Claiming that JFK and MLK get conspiracy theories, why not an American Nazi(edit summary). This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia or not competent. Dave Dial (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources were from two University press books. If you believe Rockwell being a Nazi means he shouldn't have the same treatment other assassinated politicians and political activists do, then that does seem a bit biased. However, I've stated I'll cease editing the articles in question and have said nothing else on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what the continued ganging-up will accomplish here. I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect this is due to my anti-Liberal views on a site where Liberal bias has been accused for over a decade. Quite like going to a baking convention and stating you despise bakers. That's not to say it's the reason or only reason, but I do have a feeling anti-Liberals aren't looked too highly upon here. That being said my edits and wished changes have had nothing to do with politics, but simply establishing neutrality where I feel it isn't present. It's very hard to collaborate in good faith when off the bat it seems you're being told your opinions on a subject are wrong, and when you're outnumbered as I am now. Lastly, I have indeed stated I won't make any more edits to these articles, and apologized to Jobrot for making him feel I was personally attacking him. This really has no further purpose. I didn't intend on being disruptive or causing conflict, and admittedly I got a bit heated on the topic. Ideloctober (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to Ideloctober's problematic editing, he is clearly a WP:Sock. I support indefinitely blocking the Ideloctober account. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cotap Spamming

I would like a couple of more eyes on an article if you can, the Cotap article. Over the last six months or so a series of IPs and low time registered accounts have been adding information on a "controversy" around this company spamming emails to people and using either no sources or completely unreliable sources to support this position. I feel this is over A) Undue weight and B) completely badly sourced. Since I've been reverting these additions, and my "connection" to the company (i.e. none) is now being questioned, I believe should bow out of the article to avoid drama and any possibility of edit warring in case I'm viewing it wrong. Could someone else give it a drive by and maybe chime in with their view? I did protect the article a couple of times due to the roving IP edits, and it is currently protected against non-approved users. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My advice is not to abandon the article unless you want the spammers/disruptors to win. If the information has merit, they are welcome to find WP:RS that reports it. If not, it's not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't Google or a newspaper, and doesn't report every claim that shows up on Google. These IPs and whatnot (and even the reports on forums and Google) could also be competitors looking to slander the company. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the "Spamming controversy" section on the Cotap page. As I've stated in the article's "Talk" page, I have no connection to the company, except as a sysadmin of an email domain which they have targeted with their UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email, aka SPAM). Additionally, I want to state that I have absolutely no relation to any of the company's competitors, and also that I have no axe to grind with the company; my motivation for writing the aforementioned section is that I find it worthwhile (and enhancing to Wikipedia as a whole) to report on the company's current affairs and practices, as it's the case with the issue at hand. All the edits I did to the page was while logged in with my Wikipedia id, so I do not understand what you mean by "roving IP edits". I also want to note that I have a long story as a Wikipedia contributor (since 2006, please check my contributions page), and I want what is best for Wikipedia; I think it's unfair to imply that I'm a disruptor/slanderer/spammer. Regarding adherence to WP:RS, please note that it offers (as of necessity) only general advice on what is permissible or not, to quote: "[...]Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable" (emphasis mine); the only part of the WP:RS that mentions forums is regarding material on living persons, which is not the case here, and I also took care to list other references which are not forums; please see the paragraph I just added to the article's talk page further explaining my reasoning in this regard. As a final (for now) note, I ask that you please refrain from deleting the section I've added while we are discussing it. Thanks for your time and consideration. Durval (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(Point of note, according to WP:BRD once you've added content and it's been removed (by several users) you should not add it in again until agreement has been reached, not continue to add it and tell others not to remove it.) According to the history there are many IP addresses adding in the same content and now 5 different users have removed this content. In order for this material to be included in Wikipedia you need to have reliable sources for A) the fact it is happening, B) that it is widespread and C) that it is considered a controversy that is discussed by independent third party sources and D) something more than trivia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see only two other users (besides yourself) removing the section, and those other two only happened in the last few minutes/hours after you asked other editors for help here. So I'm refraining from undoing the removals now as per WP:BRD, but I ask other editors who are reading this to please add it on my behalf. On a final (for now) note, I point that you (and the other editors helping you) have not answered my defense of the sources used, which I posted in the article's talk page, and just went on and removed it again. I think this is undue censorship, and that the right thing to do is to keep the section up while it's still being discussed. Again, thanks for yout time and consideration. Durval (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how things work here, Durval. We need a solid source for information like that, not to mention that, as you've been told, continuing to re-add the section after it has been removed is edit-warring, which can and does regularly result in a block. Also, I suggest reading WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry before you continue your canvassing off-wiki; at this point all you're going to do is waste admins' time and get the article semi-protected to stop your little power-play. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

<procedural note. User:Durval has solicited offsite encouragement for people to edit war on this topic. See the thread here.> Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will note that two SPAs showed up on the newly-minted AfD discussion. One is an IP; the other is a registered user; both have only ever made edits related to Cotap. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm interested to hear what other admins think of the off-wiki canvassing signaled by Canterbury Tail. I consider that blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

While Durval has been here more than long enough to know the rules, I wouldn't call for a block on it (despite the fact that they mention I've been calling to have them blocked, which hasn't happened.) I think that was a heat of the moment and can assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm of the old school, I suppose. Durval, it might be interesting to hear your comment. In my opinion, such canvassing has the potential of leading to great disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing can be handled by the closing admin on the AfD, but as relates to the non-RS material repeatedly being reinserted into the article, I agree this is going to cause great disruption. My view would be to warn Durval that he needs to either delete that canvassing post or, if that's not possible, retract the canvassing in that thread and tell the people in that thread to stay completely away from the article, or else he faces a block. By the way, here is a more direct link that goes right to the canvassing and does not require any scrolling: [169]. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC); edited 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations, battlegound, and SPA behavior by Plazat

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

---

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

Roosh V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been editing on Roosh V almost exclusively. They have been edit warring over various paragraphs on the page. The impetus for this ANI, however, is their behavior today. They've made statements that were BLP violations ([170]) and accused editors of being paid by the article's subject and "roosh fans" ([171], [172]). They claim I'm "being investigated" as well ([173], [174]). Requesting user be blocked and possibly topic banned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A few more edit summaries to consider: [175], [176], [177]. I've asked an admin via email that another edit be REVDELed for libel as well (won't link here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

probably missed this edit as I reverted it.--Peaceworld 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is editing RooshV page everyday, editing out information about Roosh from Anti Defamation League (who called Daryush Valizadeh

− to be an anti semite, on their Extremists and Terrorst list) .

− − EvergreenFir is also straight out lying about the number of signatures that the change petition against RooshV

− gathered, the petition has 16550 signatures, but EvergreenFir writes that it has only 12,550.

− − EvergreenFir is simply cutting out on the exclusive base of making a proven (Redacted)

− Daryush Valizadeh look good. Daryush Valizadeh is on SPLC and ADL watchlist.

− − (Redacted) − in order to edit out daily reliable information about RooshV and to lie about RooshV, as shown above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazat (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted an unsupported and most certainly false personal attack from the above post and suggest that Plazat be blocked if he continues to level such nonsensical, untrue claims about Wikipedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Thank you. Would you consider redacting part of the fifth line too per WP:LIBEL? did it myself now that the user is indefed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user indef for their now-redacted edits. Nakon 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

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

---

An edit war has broken out on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night over the hatting of a comment (see the guidance in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments and in the documents templates such as {{Hat}}). Please could an uninvolved administrator take a look. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

At first, this looks like a misplaced edit that should have been done at WP:AN3. However, there are lots of civility issues in that discussion.

For example, this edit summary, this incivility and and ownership from Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and J3Mrs there was a previously opened case by a sock that was dismissed on those grounds - maybe too hasty.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest an admin speedy close this. Another chance for the civility brigade to cause trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Off-topic commentary now hatted, Per My Invincible Status As Admin. Further disruption/edit warring will be met with a block; further incivility from any of the three involved editors (you know who you are) is most likely blockable as well. Get along, y'all, or git. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

I started to post this to a current thread about Jimjilin at 3RR (opened by David Gerard), but it's really more appropriate for ANI.

Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months. Though he's been blocked for edit warring in the past, he's a relatively experienced Wikipedian and rarely breaches 3RR. Airborne84 opened an ANI thread about him in December, but other than a comment from Xcuref1endx it did not attract attention or result in any action.

The current 3RR report concerns Jerry Coyne. Here are some other examples:

• At Promiscuity: sustaining multiple edit wars. One is over adding a statement about promiscuity and health: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Another (related) is edit warring to downplay a source which that says the opposite of the claim he wants to press, adding poor sources to contradict one that passes WP:MEDRS, and alleging it's other people mischaracterizing the source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• There are other examples in many, many articles Jimjilin has edited: Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, Criticisms of Marxism, Michel Foucault, Moral panic, Cecile Richards...
• An edit war at Michael Kempner led Mosmof to open this thread at RSN a couple months ago. In that article Jimjilin added the same thing 12 times between October 2014 and June 2015: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I believe Jimjilin has some productive contributions to some articles, and I truly hate bringing people here (it's only happened a couple times before), but POV and edit warring constitute a shockingly high percentage of his edits and, judging by past blocks and the long, long list of warnings/comments at his user talk page, there does not look to be any indication of the behavior stopping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That...are a lot of warnings. Copyright violation, edit wars, POV edits...

The diffs and contributions show extensive disruptive editing, and the talk page shows a complete ignorance of warnings.

How did that user get so many warnings without being blocked?

I'd say infinite siteban for long-term disruptive editing, including copyright infringements, ignoring a total number of fourty warnings...--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've had limited interaction with Jimjilin because of a content dispute. I think what complicates things is that the user is actually operating in good faith and doesn't seem to see a distinction between POV and fact, so like Rhododendrites, I don't want to see a long-term block. That said, Jimjilin has been blocked before and all the warnings and friendly links to guideline pages are obviously not making a difference. Mosmof (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: No, I no longer believe he is acting in good faith. He has made some productive contributions, yes, but the reason I brought the issue here is because of an egregious extent of edit warring despite being warned/advised many times; persistent WP:IDHT as displayed through editing, edit summaries, and talk page posts; [less frequent] misrepresentation of other people's arguments or [claiming/feigning] ignorance as an excuse to continue edit warring (e.g. ~"this satisfies your concern" or ~"let's just go by what the source says" while changing the text to a POV interpretation of the source); clear POV nature of a large percentage of his edits (often tacking on a line of "criticism" based on a single/poor source after well-sourced content); and having to be told everything repeatedly every time, just for him to do the same thing months later. As I said, I hate bringing people to ANI, largely because I can usually find cause to assume good faith on some level or because the issues are compartmentalized in some way, but after months/years of the same, Jimjilin has exhausted that AGF. It's possible something like a 0RR could solve the biggest problems (not 1RR as he's shown a willingness to continue an edit war over long, long periods of time), but I think that would just delay the inevitable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. See: [178][179][180][181][182] GAB^Hello! 22:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... or this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A quarter of the warnings received would still be grounds for sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are proposing, Rhododendrites, but I support whatever block or ban that will stop this editor from editing WP:Disruptively. He is a prime example of a WP:Edit warrior and someone who disregards WP:Policies and guidelines too often; if he had valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons for acting the way he does, things would be different. And even if he were to have valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons, that is not a policy to invoke on every whim or in most cases. For the record here in this thread, I'm one of the editors who has dealt with Jimjilin's problematic editing at the Promiscuity article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Flyer22: The main reason I didn't explicitly propose a block/ban is because I'm involved and wanted to bring it up here to see what other people thought the best way forward would be. Maybe it's better to be specific about a suggested course of action, though. So for the record, I see no indication whatsoever that Jimjilin is WP:HERE. Countless warnings and words of advice over the course of years has made no apparent difference in his editing patterns, so barring a credible expression of a radical change in perspective, I think that if we're thinking about preventative rather than punitive measures, an indefinite block is the only option. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. Support. GAB^Hello! 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support whatever it takes to stop the misuse of Wikipedia for POV pushing—I saw the five virtually identical edits (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) at Jerry Coyne and it is clear this editor will continue for months. Those five edits occurred on 6 and 7 August 2015. Adding WP:DUE encyclopedic information is fine, but adding fluff criticisms is not helpful. I picked another article from Jimjilin's contributions and saw two virtually identical edits to again add fluff criticism (1 + 2). Something like WP:1RR could be tried, but that may just draw the process out because it can be used to repeat an edit once a day or once a week. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites seems to follow me around constantly deleting my additions. It appears he wants to silence opinions that he doesn't like. In the Kempner article Rhododendrites claims I "added the same thing". He is mistaken. I made many changes to my additions. I usually respond to comments from other editors even when these comments (in my opinion) lack merit. I did disagree with Rhododendrites in the Promiscuity article, but disagreeing with Rhododendrites does not = disruptive editing. Rhododendrites seems to be breaking Wikipedia policy, he was not honest in his criticism of me, he is not treating other editors respectfully.Jimjilin (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, a thoughtful article by two Phds is "fluff criticism"?! This seem absurd! Here are the authors: Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the founding editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington. Dr. James Hannam is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. He holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. Looks like great qualifications.Jimjilin (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My contributions at Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, and Criticisms of Marxism I think were well-sourced and they eventually were accepted. In the Paul Singer article I linked to a NYT article amongst other sources. In the Piketty article I linked to another NYT article and a study Piketty wrote with Emmanuel Saez. In the Criticisms of Marxism article I linked to books by Thomas Sowell and Bertrand Russell and an article by Mikhail Bakunin. Can Rhododendrites tell me why he feels these sources are inadequate? Perhaps Rhododendrites is POV pushing and he doesn't like my well-sourced additions because they conflict with his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Laughably, Jimjilin just got blocked 5 minutes ago for exceeding 3RR. The block is just a routine 24 hours. Meanwhile, based on the overwhelming evidence above and the incredibly long rap sheet of warnings, I Support a block, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Could be anywhere from two weeks (escalating in length if problems continue after it expires) to indefinite. Most folks here, and those who have dealt with him all these years, appear to favor indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC); edited 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I checked the user's talkpage and saw our past discussion regarding his POV-push on an article. I was struck by the fact that he wouldn't budge from his POV despite evidence to the contrary from reliable sources that I provided to him. The sources were easy to find but he refused to check further once he had made up his mind. This rigid stance coupled with longterm POV editing and edit-warring is very disruptive to a collaborative project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An assumption of good faith isn't applicable, and if for some reason it is, the other issue then is an incurable competence issue. Evidence of this: Here Jimjilin attempts to add a POV and decontextualized Piketty paragraph in the Karl Marx article. Here an editor puts the Piketty comment into context, pointing out that Jimjilin ignored or missed the context of Piketty's opinion and was decidedly POV pushing. One month later Jimjilin then moves on to Marxism and attempts to add this, the same exact thing, proceeding as if his attempts to pull the comment out of context in the other article never happened. The same editor essentially had to repeat what they wrote before. Jimjilin responds as if this was the first time this came to his attention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough. Indef seems suitable as they have not improved with warnings. They continuely add poor quality sources that support a specific POV and they have tried to remove high quality sources that don't.[183] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, it seems several of you are more upset about Jimjilin's personal views rather than his conduct. I haven't been involved enough to comment fully, but it's just an outsider's observation. Ideloctober (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the level of cluelessness and disruption displayed in that statement says a lot more about the reason you should be sanctioned in the above ANI about you than it says anything at all worthwhile about this case. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support any increase in block length. Jimjilin has contributed good content before, but he seems to have a serious ideological ax to grind here. The fact he spent nearly a year at Michael Kempner adding the same disputed content over and over again I think shows a complete disregard for dispute resolution and consensus building. Given this sort of behavior is very old, and still occurring, I think it may be time to show Jimjilin the door. Though I would support his continued presence under strict conditions. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I propose this: An indefinite topic ban from political ideologies, broadly construed, an indefinite 1RR restriction, as well as an indefinite allowance for uninvolved adminstrators to use blocks or bans of any necessary length or type for further violations, including indefinite blocks or bans, warnings about copyright as last warning from the community, and a block of sufficient length to ensure that this user reads the warning, this time.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is, admins don't have time to babysit individual editors, and the problem/pattern is intransigent, years-long, resistant to a multitude of warnings, and completely unheeding. At this point, it's a NOTHERE situation, and the only remedy is a long long block or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The first idea I had was also "siteban". However, the user has not been blocked since 2012(ignoring the recent block that is still in effect). Most of the warnings came later. The user has probably ignored further warnings because no action was taken. I also mentioned a block of sufficient length, that doesn't have to be a short block. Probably at least a month.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support long-term block. I recommend at least six months. I would hate to see someone permanently blocked, but conversely a block of a few weeks or a month or two doesn't send a strong enough message of "change your behavior to align better with Wikipedia's policies". I spent some time on Jimjilin's talk page suggesting better ways to get results at Wikipedia, but it appears that he or she is fairly intractable. Jimjilin could potentially contribute in the future, but without a strong message, his or her actions will not change. Jimjilin's talk page shows that clearly enough. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Could an administrator please review my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed because I dont think anyone is watching the page. Thanks! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am watching now. Please stop what you are doing there. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re-opening this, because I have some serious questions:

1. Why did this brand-new user ask for early autoconfirmation at least ELEVEN times, in various venues (including here)?
2. Why has a brand new user, who was not yet even autoconfirmed, been allowed to be a mediator at WP:DRN?
3. Why has a brand new user, who was not yet even autoconfirmed, been allowed to be a mediator at WP:THIRDOPINION?
4. Why is a brand-new user, not yet autoconfirmed, requesting Rollback rights, and then altering the decision to decline them?
5. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, requesting Pending changes reviewer rights?
6. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, tagging articles for speedy deletion?
7. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, advising users on COI editing?
8. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, removing material from other user's Talk pages?
9. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, placing block notices on user's talk pages?
10. Why is a brand new user, not yet autoconfirmed, "banning users from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year"?
11. Why is a brand new user, barely autoconfirmed, a WP:TEAHOUSE Host? Even after being declined by an admin?
12. Why is a brand new user, barely autoconfirmed, reverting edits by admins, and reversing admin decisions, both regarding other users, and regarding himself?

-- Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC); edited 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

From a quick look, I would suggest a well meaning editor who is unfortunately too enthusiatic for their own good. The most serious thing above seems to be altering the decision, but since they left the text itself stand, my guess is they incorrectly intepreted done/not done as an indication of whether the request had been processed rather than whether the right was granted. There is a slight possibility they were hoping that would grant them the right, but it seems unlikely they thought they'd fool anyone by that. In terms of the volunteering, I agree it's problematic since in most or all case, they clearly aren't ready. To peoplke at DRN have suggested they withdraw. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added four more items, based on further analysis. Softlavender (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think these diffs are rather interesting: [184][185][186][187][188] GAB^Hello! 15:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added more to my post of Qs, some of them based on your last two diffs. Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think, all things considered, and for whatever unfathomable or fathomable reason, this user is a serious problem and a serious disruption to the project and needs to be blocked. (And stripped of his "posts".) Softlavender (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree this is a problem, however I would prefer to try for a solution short of an outright block. I would propose the following condtions:

• User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia is not to request any new user rights or advanced permissions in any way on any page for a period of three months
• User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia is to refrain from attempting to resolve disputes or answer requests for help, via WP:DRN, the Teahouse, or any other forum for a period of three months.
• User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia is encouraged nonetheless to keep contributing to Wikipedia, in order to gain the experience needed to qualify for advanced perisssions and to have the knowledge necessary to assist other users.
• They are additionally encouraged to consider removing or modifying some of the more questionable content on their userpage, e.g. userboxes pertaining to who granted and revoked confirmed permissions, a claim at being a recent changes "officer" (which is not a real thing) and the outright lie that they were a Time magazine "person of the year".

• It would be preferable if @Theeditorofallthingswikipedia: would simply agree to these conditions voluntarily, but if not we could seeka consensus to impose them.

Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction: the claim that he was Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year is accurate. See You (Time Person of the Year). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Related: Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#It was bound to happen sooner or later... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: to Beeblebrox: My view is that given the level of intentional disruption and even reversion of admin actions, these restrictions are far too loose. Assuming good faith, which I'm not sure is in any way warranted here, especially from a very close examination of all of his edits (including trawling through all the edits on his talk page, most of which he has removed), he should not even begin to advise, help, or mediate other users for a period of one year; and should not "warn" other users on their talk pages except possibly only by giving them level one warnings from WP:WARN (if and only if appropriate) for a period of one year. Likewise a one-year moratorium on any permissions/tools. Realistically, I think a lot of eyes, especially admin eyes, need to follow this editor, and if it seems reasonable (which I personally think it does or may), figure out if this is all a trolling festival and who the sockmaster is (via a CU or whatever). I personally still believe actual sanctions are in order rather than mere restrictions. Softlavender (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given this user's repeated attempts to gain the confirmed, rollbacker and PC reviewer rights, as well as the titles of DRN volunteer and Teahouse host – all within four days of registering – WP:HATSHOP seems increasingly relevant. However, I would agree that it is more a case of over-eagerness rather than something malicious, and would therefore support the remedies proposed by Beeblebrox in lieu of a block. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• I appreciate the good faith remedies suggested by Beeblebrox and support them. However I would also suggest all we need to do is warn them that while we appreciate their enthusiasm, they simply need to stop being disruptive disruptive and focus on actual editing lest we are forced to block them. Swarm ♠ 17:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and advocacy by 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974/199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123

2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who used 199.116.175.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 199.116.175.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently as well) is engaged in long-term disruptive editing and advocacy on numerous Chinese military hardware articles, in addition to engaging in personal attacks. (See the list of other IPs used by the editor below.) The editor does not seek resolutions through talk pages (even when invited to do so) and edit warring is frequent. The editor frequently falls back on any Chinese-language sources; these sources have few if any credentials demonstrating expert knowledge on the subject or give sources for their information (the Chinese web has so many enthusiast writers that there's always some "source" that the editor can fall back on and claim to be "accurate" and "official".)

I have (to my discredit) edit-warred with this editor, both currently and in the past.

Some more recent examples:

CJ-10 (missile)

• 119.116.175.123 adds ([189]) "sources" which the editor claims supports adding a ship to the box.
  • The claim rests on a Chinese-language article which extrapolates the fact that the ship carries the missile (which given the secrecy of Chinese military developments, such claims coming from a non-expert source is suspect).
  • A personal attack is issued in another edit.
  • Finally, the editor defends his sources not by addressing matters of its reliability by saying "If you argue that my source is not reliable, then back up with reliable source to prove them wrong"; in other words, the unreliable source must stand unless a reliable source can be found to replace it, rather than removing the unreliable source and its claims.
  • A talk page section is ignored.
  • Only the threat of possible admin action stops the editor from reintroducing the claims.
• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754 reintroduces claims from an unreliable source (PopSci) and misinterpreted source (Janes.)
  • The readdition of the Janes article is particularly blatant, since it really does not mention the article subject (the missile's designation has been subject to confusion over the years, so without supporting sources the Janes article should not be used in the CJ-10 article.)
  • I suspect the editor has not bothered to read the article, and is only adding it because I had reverted that same edit made by a different user (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of the editor in question.)
  • The relevant talk page section is ignored.
• Throughout, the editor makes reverts with the comment "removal of sourced content", evidently continuing to lack understanding that not all sources are created equal as per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY
• Similar thing happened on the [[YJ-12], again concerning the PopSci source; again, no interaction on the talk page, and the editor seems to be intervening on behalf of another editor (the same one as on the CJ-10 page)

Type 054A frigate

• 199.116.175.123 marks all ships as "active" simply on the strength that the infobox says 20 are active (the number at the time is completely unsupported by the article)
  • I update the "active" and "building" numbers by sourcing US DoD (17 active, 5 building)
  • 199.116.175.123 interprets the Janes article to say that since the 20th ship under construction has been commissioned, that all previous 19 seen under construction have been commissioned, and uses the Janes article as the "source" for each of the ships.
  • I dispute this on the talk page
    • The editor insists his interpretation of the Janes article is correct, and "backs it up" using a Chinese-language source. As far as I can tell, the Chinese source does say the same thing as the Janes article, that the 20th ship spotted under construction has now commissioned, not that 20 ships have been commissioned. The editor thus misinterprets the Chinese source too. This misinterpretation underlies the editor's argument, and the editor refuses to be budged from it. As an additional defence the editor says that since it's all on Baike Baidu (Chinese-language wiki) and supposedly sourced there, everything the editor has done in the article should stand, regardless. [190]
    • Pointing out that the Chinese-language source has no indication of being more authoritative than Janes are ignored (in editor's words, the Chinese-language source: "It is official source, you just can not argue with it.") Also pointing out that saying it's on Baike Baidu is no substitute for proper sourcing and referencing on Wikipedia is ignored; essentially the editor attempts to use Baike Baidu to WP:PROVEIT. ([191])
    • I suggest that if the editor thinks the Baike Baidu sources are good, then the editor should transfer them to Wikipedia. This would make the interpretation of the Janes article irrelevant. As far as I can tell, my suggestion has been ignored.

Type 093 submarine

• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 adds a 43 min Chinese-language video as a source. I revert it, ultimately arguing that it is incomprehensible to an English audience (no subtitles, no English summary)
  • The video is readded by 199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123; re-addition is justified by "The source is BETTER than English, it is from official Chinese news media, CCTV 7. Just watch the video as it clearly describes the propeller portion !" and "Does it matter? The source is from Chinese news site, which is more accurate than English version, 093 SSN is a Chinese military product !!!"
  • I start a topic on the talk page; editor refuses to show even after being explicitly invited on the editor's own talk page User talk:199.116.175.123#Talk pages.
• 199.116.175.123 uses a non-expert Chinese-language source to support a change to the "active" number, and claims over the submarines capabilities.
  • I dispute that the article says that the 3 093Gs have entered service, and say so on the talk page. (If you run the article through Google translate, it says the yard has completed construction, not that they have been commissioned.) I point out that contemporary sources support the assertion that the subs were completed, but not yet commissioned. No rebuttal by the editor.
  • The editor claims the Chinese-language source is "newer" than it actually is ("5 As of 8/5/2015 according to official Chinese source", when it was actually written on 29 Mar 2015) and again claims it is "official" and implies it is more authoritative than the other sources (ignoring, of course, how the editor has misinterpreted the source already as stated in the previous point)
  • Editor switches to 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 and re-adds the claims, which also highlights the editors ignorance concerning the dates
  • A personal attack is thrown in for good measure.
  • Throughout the editor uses "Removal of sourced content." to justify re-additions, clearly not understanding why they were removed, and of course, avoiding the talk page and deeper discussion.

Shenyang WS-10

• A minor example of the lack of due care on the part of the editor
  • Removes info using the edit comment that "it's not in the source", or "removal of sourced content" ([192], [193], [194]) when what was in the article was indeed in the source (as I explain on the talk page.)
  • Finally, the editor explicitly demonstrates ignorance of the source article's contents, first by elaborating on why the editor thinks the reversions are justified ("The source did not even mention AL-31FM1, where did you get the idea that the latest WS-10 has less thrust than AL-31FM1? You troll !!!!") and almost immediately afterwards realizes that it the information is in the source ("Ok, I read the source. It clearly says approaching. Let us use this word instead of "less". This is more accurate and neutral tone.")
  • In the editors final revision (and the current one), note how any negative connotations toward the WS-10 have been removed to be "neutral". The source article does support the range of a lower bound of 13 t thrust, and an upper bound of the thrust of the Russian engine (this is explained on the talk page.)

Other IPs this editor has used in the past include (all with similar behaviour):

• 199.116.175.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9104:96F8:421:1AE7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was unsure whether or not to take this to content disputes, since talk page interaction seems to be a prerequisite for that and this editor seems to make it a point to avoid interacting on talk pages altogether. This is in addition to editor's general uncivilness and lack of comprehension. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Citadel48 at Bougainville Civil War (COPYVIO links, YouTube refs, non-RS, unsourced controversial material, marking major edits as "minor", and edit warring)

Yesterday I expressed concerns on the Bougainville Civil War talk page about recent changes to the page by User:Citadel48, specifically that I felt it fell short of our policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V and potentially also WP:FRINGE. I also placed an NPOV and verifiability tag on the article. (Pls see my post here Talk:Bougainville_Civil_War#Problems_with_current_state_of_this_article).

• One of the main issues with the original version [195] of the article was that large parts were either unreferenced or were cited to YouTube videos, whilst the article also used a very old article from the Green Left Weekly (not RS according the RS Noticeboard as far as I could see) to advance a theory which is clearly controversial and presented without balance (with probably WP:BLP issues as well).
• Following that post a number of other editors agreed that there were issues and some of the material was either removed [196] by User:Nick-D (which I of cse agree with) or removed / rewritten by me, whilst in the process I also added a number of reliable sources for some of the material and corrected a number of errors of fact [197].
• I subsequently added an additional discussion to the talkpage about my concern about a likely inaccuracy IRT Australian helicopter pilots and explained why I removed the content, as the article made a claim about their presence citing a YouTube video but this was specifically contradicted by a fairly recent article in the The Australian newspaper and invited Citadel48 to discuss - pls see here Talk:Bougainville_Civil_War#Alleged_Australian_helicopter_pilots.
• Following this Citadel48 blindly reverted all changes with this edit [198], marking the edit as "minor", not including an edit summary, and without discussion on the talkpage. In so doing he removed the NPOV and Verifiability tags I had placed on the article and has done so repeatedly since. He then proceeded to continue to make additions to the article that suffered from the same issues, including the addition of videos from YouTube that are likely COPYVIOs.[199]
• I raised the issue on the talk page again [200] and posted a message on his user page here [201]; however, to date his interactions on the talkpage have failed to discuss the actually issues raised with his edits and only seem argumentative to me.
• As far as I can see there is no consensus for his edits (in particular the insertion of unsourced material and Youtube videos and the use of references to Portuguese wikipedia) and myself and at least 3 other editors have all expressed concerns in the last 24 hours about them on the talkpage (User:Nick-D, User:Peacemaker67 and User:AustralianRupert), whilst previously his addition of similar material to the same article has also been challenged and reverted by two other users (User:JoeSperrazza [202][203] and User:Arjayay [204] in June and July, however these concerns were simply ignored and reverted by Citadel48 [205] or dubious refs to YouTube inserted [206])
• This morning his recent changes were reverted by another editor due to the COPYVIOs they contained [207][208]; however, Citadel48 repeatedly edit warred, reverting them back [209][210] - on one occasion not providing an edit summary and on all occasions marking every edit as minor.
• Citadel48 has recently been indefinitely banned from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina and from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC - pls see here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Citadel48. This AE also included the significant issue of his long term abuse of the "minor edit" function and use of YouTube videos so he is well aware of the fact that this behavior is considered problematic by the community but has chosen to continue, albeit in an area that he is not subject to sanctions in.
• He is clearly not a new user so cannot claim ignorance of our core policies (especially as I have provided numerous links to them, as have many other editors on his talk page). My conclusion from all this is that he is not here to build an encyclopedia per WP:NOTHERE and I request an uninvolved administrator to review his (ongoing) conduct as it seems to be getting beyond the realms of disruptive and becoming intransigent, demonstrating a complete unwillingness to collaborate or to learn from previous mistakes. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Anotherclown (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Anotherclown's recounting of events, and point out that from the beginning Citadel48 has sought out drama in articles right across WP. His first edit was IRT Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, and a look at his talk page history shows that he has bounced from one drama article to the next, often taking fringe positions and not respecting consensus. I am pretty much convinced he is NOTHERE, and urge admins to impose a month block to see if he gets the message. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Misbehaving IP

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

---

IP 108.65.249.149 is behaving in a difficult way on Shark fin soup. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Given what he did before his last block, I just blocked again for six months. If this guy was using an account, he'd have been indeffed a month ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Refusal to lift WP:BURDEN by User:Mhhossein

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting material from a disputed source in Quds Day without lifting his burden to demonstrate its reliability on either the talk page or anywhere else.[211][212] The source is a partisan Muslim organisation with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have explained the same user numerous times before that such sources aren't usable per WP:V and he is not likely to stop disrupting the project before action is taken against him.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this not on WP:RSN? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is the place where editors not failing to follow WP:BURDEN can ask about the suitability of sources they wish to add or restore, "not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct", as it says in the leading text on the board itself.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you have opened a discussion at RSN, while both have been edit-warring over this. It is not permissible to edit war even if you are right. Why are people here? To build an encyclopaedia, not create drama. I count 0 talk page comments by either side, both are arguing through edit summaries. A simple post to RSN would have solved this without any drama. A word to the wise: there are no victors at WP:ANI, only survivors. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: What would RSN solve given that it almost never responds? You're obviously a bit of an amateur and mistakenly think RSN is "the ANI-equivalent for sources".--Anders Feder (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Photographic film disruption gets POINTy

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

---

Here's a textbook case of disruption to make a point: lots of fact tags at photographic film. We have a new user who is rampaging through the article, apparently trying to get rid of all the text, reducing the article to nonsense. Can someone with a lot of patience take a look? Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Sakimonk

Sakimonk has been previously been warned repeatedly, once for edit-warring by Melanie here and once again by myself here. The user continues to edit-war on a number of pages. See for example histories of Qadiani, Ahmadiyya or Template:Islam.

The reason why I am writing here is because I have been subject to uncivil behaviour by Sakimonk here. The user refers to me as a "treacherous qadiani", [Qadiani is a derogatory religious slur for Ahmadis], "who allies with the enemies of Islam to make war against Muslims". The user continues calling me, "plain enemies of Islam" and "kuffar"[meaning infidel]. I don't think the user is here to improve Wikipedia.--Peaceworld 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I should probably add that this is not the first time the user has been uncivil. The user appears to claim that I have an hidden agenda here.--Peaceworld 10:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

actually I deleted that message left on your wall because I realised it was not nice and I wrote something different.

Also I stopped editing those pages and I only put the bit regarding the phrase qadiani - all I wanted to say was that it is the official government term in Pakistan (which it is).

Also the only reason I said those things is because you were harassing me and stalking my edits, going into the Israel talk page and siding against me JUST because I was disputing with you is very unfair.

I actually listened to your suggestions on template Islam so I don't one why you're saying I edit warred there.

Sakimonk ^talk 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

could you find evidence evidence where I have harassed you? If not, that may constitute a personal attack.--Peaceworld 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring violations of IBAN

Per this thread Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has violated our IBAN yet again, and everyone else agrees. Previous violations include joining in a discussion in which I was a key participant, reverting my edits, joining in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be banned from editing a page he had no prior interest in, and insinuating that another user and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames.

My interacting with this user has produced no positive results whatsoever, and every time he comes back and starts engaging in this kind of (not-so-passive-)aggressive behaviour it drains my desire and ability to contribute to the project. I have spent the vast majority of my Wikipedia activity since the IBAN was imposed trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese poetry (almost all of these articles were created by me since the IBAN), whereas he appears to have gone back to fighting with other users over Soka Gakkai on talk pages with his only article edits being to violate WP:V and WP:NOR, something he has been criticized for constantly. I have been doing my very best to avoid directly joining in these discussions to point out that Catflap08 is continuing to engage in the same disruptive behaviour that led to our IBAN; Catflap08 on the other hand has not hesitated to attack me in whatever venue he can find.

I'm tired of having to put up with this harassment; and it's a blatant double-standard that he can violate the IBAN whenever he wants to and I can't/don't want to. I'd like to see any of the following results:

1. Catflap08 receives a block (at least a short one) for his repeated IBAN-violations, but the IBAN stays in place;
2. the IBAN stays in place, but Catflap08 receives a further TBAN (or PAGEBAN) from pages related to Kenji Miyazawa and the Kokuchūkai, broadly construed -- he has never contributed anything worthwhile to this area, but it represents 75% of his IBAN-violating edits and close to all of his historic interactions with me;
3. the IBAN is dissolved, Catflap08 is allowed continue to do what he is doing with no direct consequences, except that I am also allowed respond directly, and the community works to resolve the underlying content issues.

One or more of these solutions received near-unanimous support (Catflap08 himself was "neutral") in this thread, but the thread was archived before a close could be made. The impartial observers mostly (User:SPACKlick and User:Blackmane but not User:Shii) tended to line up behind consequences for Catflap08 rather than dissolving the ban (solution #1 or #2), and there was a tendency among users with a history of involvement with the dispute (User:Snow Rise, User:AlbinoFerret and User:Sturmgewehr88) to favour dissolution of the IBAN (solution #3).

No one benefits from the status quo, though, so something clearly needs to be done. (Also pinging users @SilkTork: @Wikimandia: @Hoary: @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown: for historic involvement in this dispute -- sorry if you don't want to comment, as some of you specifically stated months ago; just ignore if so.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not followed this ongoing drama except for occasionally skimming it if I'm reading ANI. So I'm not up to date on the history but I will say that THIS EDIT from Catflap08 saying that "88" in a username is a some kind of well-known code for Nazi enthusiasts is WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE and patently offensive. In this stupid comment, Catflap08 has cast aspersions on everyone with 88 in their usernames as possibly being Nazis. There are almost 30,000 of these users on the English Wikipedia alone (no doubt many of whom were born in 1988, or are using 88 for any other perfectly innocent reason). If someone knows how I can safely lobotomize myself to delete just this odious factoid, please tell me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Nazi symbolism#Continued use by neo-Nazi groups, "88" is in fact used as a code among some neo-Nazi groups. Your notion that he extends this to any username containing "88" seems to be a strawman.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if you want to get technical, those (for lack of a better word) dumbasses use two eights not eighty-eight like Hijiri and myself. When I render my username in Japanese I use 八十八 (eighty-eight) instead of 八八 (eight eight). But if you read Catflap's comment, he's obviously insinuating that anyone using 88 has a "Fascist background". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism, Sock Puppets?

User:Csalinka, User talk:Csalinka and User:188.36.195.10, User talk:188.36.195.10

These users continue to add destination maps and attempt to change the typo on Nuuk Airport, Zurich Airport, Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Kangerlussuaq Airport and Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport. I have warned the IP and the user. But they don't listen and will not communicate with anyone. They claim that their edits to Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport are not vandalism, but they clearly are as they are adding 2000MB bytes of content without providing any sources at all. I also think that User:Csalinka is socking the IP, any further actions would be apprecciated, thanks, RMS52 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bytes, not MB.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not relevant to this. RMS52 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a factor 1000 error in your accusations against another user is extremely relevant. But it isn't central to it, hence the use of small text.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Users blocking constructive, sourced edits to Kievan Rus' without discussion or proper explanation

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

---

• Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex_Bakharev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users have been consistently removing what seem to be any and all ties between Kiev and Kievan Rus', as if the history of Kievan Rus' does not belong to Kiev or Ukraine. Surely, its is not an issue that the history of Kievan Rus' belongs to Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. However, these users have consistently been deleting many edit made to Kievan Rus', including the following deletions of two of the most recognisable symbols of Kievan Rus', presumably because these symbols would correctly associate Kievan Rus' with Ukraine:

1. The removal of the image of the Golden Gate of Kiev.
2. The removal of Vladimir's trident, the emblem of Kievan Rus' (10th-11th centuries) used on seals and coins, referenced with Symbols of the Rurikids.

I should stress, these deletions have been done without talk, and without proper reasons. Nonsensical reasons are sometimes given such as "lack of proper attribution" or unsubstantiated claims of sock puppetry even though all edits have been made by me, and only one IP address. Up to this point I've always made edits anonymously, but now due to these strange deletions I'm forced to create this user account.

--Elevencontortionist (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a content issue, please take your concerns to Talk:Kievan Rus'. Sam Walton (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• A complaint that is totally without merit, and outside the scope of ANI since it's a content dispute. There's also a discussion on Talk:Kievan Rus' about it, which makes this complaint forum shopping. The OP, a brand new account with no contributions outside this ANI-complaint and notifications about it, is obviously connected to an IP that has been edit-warring to get irrelevant material into the article, edits that have been reverted by three experienced users, and has led to the article being protected by Alex Bakharev. Since other editors have also reverted the IP/OP, not just me, I see no reason for only including me in this complaint, so I'll ping Iryna Harpy and Altenmann too. And I suggest someone close this, and serve the OP a trout. Thomas.W ^talk 12:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

False accusations of being a sock

Dondervogel 2 keeps on making false accusations of being a sock while reverting my changes. [213] S/he doesn't engage on the talk page. Please help because these constant accusations make it really hard to try to engage in good faith discussions.Glider87 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)