Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [2].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD end run GAME

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

---

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. Userpage kept at MfD, so someone moves it to mainspace to see it deleted under the higher standards of AfD. A disingenuous move of someone else's userpage. WP:GAMEing to subvert the consensus at MfD. Blatant refusal to accept the obvious consensus at WT:N that the WP:GNG is not to be applied to userpage drafts. WP:TEAMing, by the page mover and the AfD nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac [4]
• Ricky81682 [5]

This is a little crazy. The page should be userfied and the AfD closed. It was a user page moved into main space and then immediately nominated for deletion so clearly the editor didn't think it met notability standards. It should have been left as a user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No notification to me of this thread, just happened to see the topic. It is disingenuous to vote to keep a topic that you think does not belong in the encyclopedia and even more so to start an ANi thread about someone taking action to make usable something you want kept. There are tons of stubs out in mainspace waiting to be expanded and this is just one more. If the topic passes GNG, great, and if not, that is ok too. Let editors decide. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the question is not on the material itself, but the fact that almost no one, not even yourself, believes it passes GNG, but it was moved to the mainspace seemingly with the intent to have it AFDd. It makes it seem that the thought process in your head is as follows: "Oh, it survived MfD because GNG does not apply to the user space. Let's move it to the mainspace so it can be deleted!"

I'm not really sure what I think of this mess. It brings up the question, why should stale drafts be deleted? No one seems to agree on that. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caring for our Watersheds

I'm sure there are more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not a conduct issue. Just move it back to user or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is most definitely behavioural. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F was very clear, almost personally, to Legacypac. This GAME of moving his MfD userpage nomination failures unilaterally to mainspace for himself or Ricky to immediately nominate at AfD citing the GNG is even an openly declared strategy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability

Re, "just move it back", there is the issue that non-admins can't actually do this, since it requires moving over a redirect. Also, moving it back would almost certainly result in Legacypac moving it again, and I don't want to start a move war. A2soup (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability. Very much related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is the accusation that I'm teaming up to nominate the page for AFD along with closing the MFD discussion? I'm just closing these MFD discussions and there's been more than enough at MFD with people moving them to mainspace in the middle of MFD and removing the MFD notice. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H. (2nd nomination) and Rohit Varma for one by DGG. If Legacypac is doing that with non-notable pages, then anyone can nominate them for deletion but most of the moves seem fine to me. The RFC on these moves basically came back as no consensus due to not being specific enough. I nominated the Watersheds for AFD specifically with the option to draftify since it didn't seem to qualify for mainspace. I think the issue is the question of what exactly is to be done with many year old drafts that possibly (?) aren't ready for mainspace. That and the repeated accusations of some kind of cabal-like behavior based on the very few interactions going on at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are connected in that Legacypac is drawing from your list of so called stale pages, and in at least two cases have AfDed a userpage that legacypac moved to mainspace in bad faith. I would call on you to not enable this activity. Yes, Legacypac is doing many justifiable userspace-to-mainspace moves, but amongst them are some pretty bad faith MfD end runs, moving userpages to mainspace where he well knows they will be promptly deleted per AfD standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is a large amount of mind-reading as to why Legacypac is doing whatever he is doing in this area, and I personally agree with Ricky81682 that the moves look helpful and in good faith. If someone's research and writing appear useful to the encyclopedia, then by all means move it to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• The move by Legacypac is at the very least WP:POINTy. He directly stated in the move rationale that he didn't think it was notable, and yet he moved to mainspace anyway. I don't think Ricky's behavior is problematic. Assuming good faith, he saw an article that wasn't notable in the mainspace and nominated it for AfD, exactly as he should in that situation. ~ Rob^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of the page moves are an end run around the communities lack of agreement for the wholesale deletion of drafts. One random example is Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline. Legacypac moved it from userspace to mainspace where it was A7-ed. Yet Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace was abundantly clear that A-criteria do not apply outside mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've CSD'd thousands of stale drafts and promoted hundreds of them to mainspace. The complaining deals with a few borderline cases. I actually thought the Hack and Smack one was notable (it is a long running Hollywood star studded event that has received a lot of press) and was surprised to see it deleted A7 by an Admin. I'm doing productive sorting of stale drafts. The complaint is only armchair quarterbacking. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• No action: Not an ANI issue, as others have noted. The purpose of draftspace is to draft articles. This is just an illustration of how current MfD practices are woefully inadequate to the task of handling the draft namespace. Draftspace MfDs are essentially a catch-22: The purpose of draftspace is to prepare an article for eventual movement to mainspace. MfD won't consider notability of a draft because a draft isn't an article. So we're left with a continuous parade of abandoned drafts on subjects that weren't notable when written, and never became notable in the ensuing years. Call it an IAR move. Something has got to give. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Certainly an ANI issue. I have userfied the page and closed the AfD. Legacypac has been completely open with this strategy: the edit summary from Graffiki sums it up nicely: move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying. I have left the following comments at User talk:Legacypac along with a warning not to continue these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What a disruptive move on your part, threatening me for moving a marginal article to mainspace - i even tagged it appropriately for cleanup. Why are you overriding another Admin's AfD and the opinions of other editors that this should be deleted? Sitting in the userspace of a long gone user accomplishes nothing. 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MSGJ's action here is closer to a supervote than anything else. Even if the move to mainspace was wrong, unilaterally closing an AfD with good faith !votes in support of deletion, before the discussion had been open for 7 days, would be just as wrong if not more so. Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said above, this is yet another illustration of how woefully inadequate MfD has become for addressing article drafts. Legacypac should be commended for being bold and trying to find a resolution for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Can someone please tell me what use it is to retain non-notable stale drafts created by drive-by users who left immediately half a decade ago? Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Better to wait for an editor who cares about the topic to look into it than to have legacypac mass-process them all throwing out notable drafts amongst them, and alienating once productive Wikipedians now on wikibreak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't move the goalposts. Softlavender asked about a very specific scenario that didn't involve people on wikibreak, and involved a draft that hadn't been touched in a half-decade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an MFD discussion for deleting a page of a user who hasn't been active since 2005 opposed heavily on the basis that the user didn't put up a "retired" tag on their page meaning that they could return after a decade. To some people, a half-decade or longer could be a wikibreak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And how would an editor "who cares about the topic" find such a non-notable userpage draft? And who would such an editor be that would even find a userpage draft on a non-notable subject? Moreover, unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors find userspace material using internal Wikipedia searches, or WhatLinksHere from related topics. The issue is Legacypac GAMEing to delete old drafts on notable topics. Deciding Wikipedia-notability requires extensive source searching and analysis, it is not defined by the current state of the page. Spam and promotion are irrelevant to this discussion, no one opposes deletion of spam and promotion. What this is about is Legacypac moving userspace drafts on possibly notable topics to mainspace so that they will get deleted, when the page has already been kept as a userpage, or draft page, at MfD, or he knows full well that it would be kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Re "non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches" - this is a common argument, but it's actually not true at all, and hasn't been for some time. As documented at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Namespace and robots.txt, all of userspace and draftspace are automatically noindexed. You can verify this yourself by trying to find these drafts through Google. I've done it and found that, ironically, all you can find is the deletion discussion. So deleting the pages actually gives them marginally more exposure than leaving them be. For stale pages with mild to moderate promotion issues, the best option is clearly to blank and replace with {{Userpage blanked}}, which is actually the remedy recommended by WP:STALEDRAFT. A2soup (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A2soup: Only WP:DRAFTS-space pages and userpages are non-indexed. User subpages (which is where most drafts occur, not on draftspace) are indeed indexed by Google, and unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: This hasn't been the case since almost a year now, and no amount of underlining will make your statement true. Check for yourself by trying to find one of your userpages on en via Google. –xeno^talk 11:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The attitude I've been seeing since I showed up at MfD seems to alternate between "someone might use it someday" (but contrast WP:XBALL) and "the policy page doesn't say we should delete it" (usually referring to the explicit wording of WP:STALEDRAFT, which suggests a whole host of non-delete outcomes for things that will never be used in yet another half-decade). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The logic here beats me. MFD is just getting weird. Ten year old drafts of Hitler have opposition to deletion. 18 month old press releases in Mongolian about stock issuances get opposed. Eight year old copies of mainspace articles get opposition. Nine year old drafts of the article for WWI in the userspace of a vanished user are opposed. We have non-admin closures for a crazy contentious discussion to keep a single sentence after five years when a draft already exist based on other identical discussions while relisting get reverted until an RFC about whether "Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions" is resolved. I don't agree with it but I understand Legacypac's frustration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's inclusionism gone mad. The arguments posted by the opposers are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal favorite at the moment is this MfD in which it's been claimed that deleting content copied-and-pasted from a web source as a copyvio is inappropriate because it serves to BITE the creator, who might be an employee or volunteer for the subject, and who hasn't followed the instructions at WP:DCM, and who has been blocked for having a promotional username and engaging in promotional edits (and not merely a UAA "you only have to change your username" block). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer why we are deleting userspace drafts, the process found about 50 hoaxes just from one user: [6] and it took me just a couple minutes of checking to find this nonsense User:RickyIsNinja/The_Ooba_Jooba but hey maybe we should save that in case someone can establish notability or wants to work on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a slam-dunk delete to me because it's either a hoax or something made-up for off-wiki purposes. Even hardcore inclusionists should see that. I've gone ahead and MFD'd it. clpo13_(talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The more appropriate and efficient action for a blatant hoax to to speedy delete per WP:G3. But in any case, to the best of my knowledge, neither I not anyone else has opposed the MfD deletion of a demonstrated hoax. Contrary to their statement above, Legacypac has repeatedly stated that the purpose of deleting userspace drafts is to clean up userspace, with no mention of hoaxes. A quick look at their MfD noms will also show that hoaxes are a very small proportion. A2soup (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If we MfD this User:Rileyboss/Michael smith's dick someone will argue we should not be tampering with userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And accuse whoever nominated it of being a busybody, most likely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A userpage draft should not be kept indefinitely. It was last edited by the editor who created it in March 2011. If there is no policy on drafts covering time limits for drafts then policy covering the matter should be created. How many years can a draft be kept in usepage before it is deleted or moved to mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there's enough apathy regarding drafts and MfD generally that the jurisprudential practices there have turned it into a walled garden. The suggestions in WP:STALEDRAFT are particularly disconnected from reality. Redirecting drafts to mainspace articles that never had content from them, simply blanking drafts comprising unsourced BLPs, keeping and stubbing copied-and-pasted web content with no evidence of permission. These things would never happen in any other deletion process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting relistings by admins and demanding RFCs on the matter wouldn't happen elsewhere either. The problem is it's easy to come with the hypothetical "fearful user who returns after a decade distraught that the one-sentence text he started in 2007 was deleted" but that's not the reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup's point hoaxes are one of many reasons the continued objections to cleaning up user space are inappropriate. We keep hearing that we should leave userspace alone, but there is copyvio, attack pages, and ofher issues there. Here is another example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pope_Pope/Aye_Phyu_Phyu_Aung -surely this should be kept in case she becomes a famous person and someone can use this as background material. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's GAMING occurring here. Given how much these two edit on XfDs, I'd need a lot more evidence to be convince this wasn't just coincidence.

How about we discuss an expiration date for stale draft pages instead? Frankly I buy the arguments above that there's no reason to keep old abandoned drafts, especially ones with minimal content. I'd think anything older than 3 years should just be deleted outright unless someone thinks it's remotely worth of stub or higher status in the mainspace and approaches GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The GAMING is apparent in Legacypac's comments in the MfD discussion: "If not deleted here I will promote to mainspace on the strength of the Keep votes." To which I (the sole Keep vote) responded, "Emphatically, I do not advocate promoting this article to mainspace in its present state - I am not arguing for that." Nonetheless, Legacypac moved the page immediately after MfD closure with the move summary "stale draft that survived MfD because editors refused to consider notability". If that's not evidence of the GAMING descirbed, I don't know what is. A2soup (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar case of User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki, which Legacypac moved to mainspace with the move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The best evidence for GAMING is Legacypac's comment here, in an MfD discussion where they explicitly lay out their plans for what they are doing now: "If you keep voting to keep draft articles on non-notable topics, I'll moved them into article space and AfD them. When they are deleted by the larger community thr dtaft turned in a redirect will be deleted too." A2soup (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I have no objection to removing copyvio, atttack pages, and many other issues from userspace. I think that speedy deletion per WP:G12 (copyvio) and WP:G10 (attack pages) are more efficient avenues than MfD, and will sometimes say so, but I do not oppose those deletions. What I strenuously object to is deleting userspace drafts for notability issues, which was the question at stake in this case and the others that I have complained about. Non-notability in userspace is not problematic because the pages are not part of the encyclopedia and are not indexed in search engines (deletion discussions are indexed, so deletion ironically give these pages more visibility than they would otherwise have).

I have yet to see a reason why deletion of non-notable stale userspace drafts benefits the encyclopedia compared to the alternatives of removing from the stale drafts category or blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}. In addition, it has the definite drawbacks of 1) taking up admin time, 2) increasing the visibility of the pages, 3) making material difficult to retrieve (even if the subject is not notable, some of the information may be useful in another article, which may not have been created yet), and 4) alienating editors, since userspace is generally considered a private workspace, as long as the work is not problematic.

As a final note, Legacypac states above that they are "cleaning up user space". This practice is is in direct contradiction with WP:MFD, which states: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." That Legacypac is not only persistently disregarding this policy with their MfD noms of stale non-notable drafts, but also disregarding the policy through GAMEing tactics, is the subject of this ANI report. A2soup (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the benefits of deleting userspace drafts, user pages are not private workspaces (see WP:UP#OWN). Users no more own their user pages than they do their contributions to articles. The only way to ensure information on Wikipedia is not changed or deleted is to keep it somewhere else. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that userspaces are not technically private workspaces. I am arguing that they are usually treated as such when non-problematic, which makes clearing out stale drafts in userspace apt to offend editors and therefore undesirable. A2soup (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering how broken MfD is, referring to its landing page for an indication of the only ways in which it may be used is almost comical. It's not a policy page, or even a guideline page. It's a process description page referring to what is quite possibly the most broken deletion process right now. At the end of the day the entire purpose of userspace drafts (and draftspace drafts) is to write articles that will someday become articles. Okay, it takes up admin time: Let's create a CSD process if these pages are uncontroversially useless. It increases the visibility of the pages? A couple weeks listed at MfD is a joke compared to the years most of these have spent getting indexed by Google. Making the material difficult to retrieve is a reasonable complaint, but where we're talking about drafts that have no hope of becoming articles, there's almost never anything to retrieve. Finally, alienating editors? What's worse: Deleting a draft that has zero hope of becoming an article written by someone who created nothing else; or leading editors on by keeping a hopeless draft at MfD only for them to submit it to AfC to get declined again and again (or moved to mainspace where it gets A7'd or AfD'd immediately)? And how is unilaterally blanking someone's sandbox any less bitey? At least MfD gives an explanation beyond an edit summary, as well as shows an inexperienced editor that it wasn't some roving tyrant of an admin who shat on their userspace, but an actual discussion by more than one person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if the answer to this is in the giant thread to this point, but why isn't indexing of drafts disabled? I realize that makes them less visible to editors who could help bring the draft to usefulness (though I wouldn't be surprised if that's never happened in the history of the universe), but maybe that's the dividing line between draftspace and mainspace -- in draftspace, someone's got to either get the thing to a minimally acceptable point on his or her own, or explicitly recruit others to help make that happen. Probably these comments will seem hopelessly uninformed to those who hang around the draft process a lot. EEng 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked on it myself. Looks like userspace did get noindexed as of around November (though the INDEX magicword apparently still works there to override it), and draftspace is also noindexed by default (no idea when that was implemented). All that said, most of the disputes at MfD are over userspace drafts from before 2014. But on the other hand, MfD is also noindexed by default. So is all of AfD. So the whole argument about giving new prominence to something that should be deleted is kind of a wash (though I'd point out that virtually all the userspace drafts getting nominated were indexed for years before getting nominated, so even then... it's a drop in the bucket if MfD increases that prominence). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "MfD is also noindexed by default." - Sorry, this just isn't true. I don't understand why you're saying it. I spend a lot of time googling stuff at MfD. Try it yourself, run these google searches on userspace drafts currently at MfD: [7] [8] [9] What comes up? Maintenance categories, deletion discussions, and not the page itself. A2soup (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, closed MfDs are noindexed by default. {{mfd top}} transcludes a noindex flag. Perhaps active MfDs should be noindexed as well. I think that's something worth discussing, don't you think? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see my comments weren't so hopelessly uninformed after all. EEng 02:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal. If the stale draft is not going to be deleted then it should be blanked. I will replace the draft with {{Userpage blanked|reason=stale}} Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would support. Better and easier than deleting them through MfD. Can we get a threshold for "stale" though? If we can agree to a certain time limit, we could employ a bot to go through and do the work for us based on date of last edit. I mentioned 3 years as a limit above, but was just a number I pulled out of thin air. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is just talking about the specific page that gave rise to this thread, which absolutely should happen. As a general principle I support 3 years after last edited, or 1 year after the editor stopped editing, whichever happens first. But I think anything we come up with here will get contested. I don't have a lot of faith that anything other than "leave it alone" will happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I generally share your pessimism but it's something easy enough to propose and see what folks think. I'd be happy to start the proposal (on VP perhaps) and see where it goes. Don't think it will get far, but would rather try and fail then just let it continue as is. I think your extra 1 year stipulation is a good one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a policy for time limits. Time limits should be added to policy or we are going to end up at AN/I again when another stale draft is found. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, VP is a good start. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Yeah, any policy change would have to be over at VP, right? Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change. On another note, I support your proposal if you're just referring to this particular ANI filing. (Assumed/Misread that you mean all drafts and kinda ran with it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please make the policy change. My proposal is for the one stale draft. My second proposal is for all drafts as soon as policy is changed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:STALE suggests one year, but that's only for userspace drafts. AFAIK, there's no time limit for draftspace. clpo13_(talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: @EvergreenFir: @Mendaliv: I drafted a comprehensive RfC about stale drafts some time ago: User:A2soup/MfD RfC. As someone with a lot of experience with the locus of the conflict, I formulated it to address precisely the main points of disagreement. I was told that it would not be helpful, so I didn't open it. Perhaps we could post it to VP or an appropriate talk page? A2soup (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think an RFC on policy views is not going to accomplish a ton. If the people who actually !vote on each discussion afterwards make different opinions, are we supposed to disregard that in exchange for what an RFC came up with? We don't close discussions based on what the people in an RFC think the policy should be, we close based on what was actually discussed in the discussion. The bigger issue is eight year old userspace copies of mainspace are being opposed under the guise of "rudeness". It's one thing to disagree with deletion but another to just insult and criticize every nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty is an example of a perfunctory nomination, with disregard to getting the facts of the details right. In short, it is an example of why the nominator cannot be trusted with his nominations. The error rate is too high. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is in the world is wrong with nominating an eight year userspace draft for an article that already has a biography of a living person out there? This is the textbook definition of WP:UP#COPIES. Are we supposed to just continue with changes to the templates, changes to the text and ignore the very real possibility of BLP violations because a user half a decade ago did some work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes your write sensibly, sometimes nonsense. Your textbook reading is incorrect, try reading it again. Independent creations on the same topic are not "COPIES". WP:UP#COPIES does not cover BLP problems, if there is a BLP problem, nominate on the basis of the BLP problem. What is wrong with nominating worthless harmless things? I may have forgotten to mention busywork, a failing you are obsessing with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change" No, there is enough of a problem of flagrant disregard of consensus at MFD, WT:MFD, CT:CSD, WT:DRV, WT:N, to say that editors should stop WP:GAMEing to avoid inconvenient lack of consensus, and the so called "problem" of old good faith article drafts in userspace is entirely a manufactured non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no functioning system to game here.

If someone's random user subpage does not exactly fit a narrow reading of a CSD, we are not supposed to bring it to MfD for an ever changing batch of nonsense reasons. Then a couple editors vote to Keep random nonsense pages because they will not consider GNG, but object to a move to mainspace because in their opinion the topic does not pass GNG! That just proves they considered GNG, though they say they can't or will not.

It makes sense that an active editor's new draft in userspace may not have enough refs or content yet to obviously pass GNG, so we give them a lot of leeway to work on it, but at some point after the editor is long gone, it is crazy not to make a judgement call on the page against GNG and then act on it. Editors who are actively cleaning up are met with attacks, insults, scorn and ridicule, and now dragged to ANi over a stupid situation the complaining editors created with their super narrow interpretation of guidelines.

Wikipedia is a public space for all to enjoy, kind of like a park. The current situation is like bystanders throwing bottles and insults at volunteers removing trash from a park, claiming someone might come looking for the trash later. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:GAME (openly declared as noted above) is to take a userpage not deleted at MfD (where WT:N affirmed that the WP:GNG does not apply), and move it to mainspace, knowing full well that it is not appropriate in mainspace, so as to see it deleted at AfD (where the GNG applies). WP:GAMEing is disruption. If you don't like consensus, you should abide anyway or seek to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First - I did not do that on the article you started this thread with. Second, if a draft article passes MfD it should go to mainspace and be tagged appropriately so it can be worked on by various editors. Let it sink or swim like everything else. Voting to Keep a page then arguing it is not notable is WP:GAMEing the system and is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, userspace is fine for draft material not ready for mainspace. I can't see anything but extreme immediatism in your position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682, A2soup, Clpo13, Mendaliv, and QuackGuru: I've typed up two versions of a VP proposal at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox7. On the talk page let me know what you think of them, if you prefer one over the other, see errors, etc. I'll move to VP after some feedback. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 3 years can easily revert the changes made and essentially reset the clock for another 3 years."
  • User:EvergreenFir, another 3 years is too long. There must be a time limit. I suggest changing it to and reset the clock for no longer than one year." QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like blanking because: -it is completely unilateral action by a single editor in an area likely no one is watching. there is no second set of eyes on the actin -it is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do to articles, talk pages and so on. -There is no value to the project, and the problematic material just stays a click away. -It leaves that stale page available to vandals to play with. -If restored, someone needs to find and delete the page anyway later Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking doesn't need review because it is only an ordinary edit. Fear of vandals unblanking near-harmless pages in userspace is an unfounded fear. But if you don't like blanking, then don't. Userspace is no_indexed back rooms where users can have their private pages. Userpage vandalism does happen, but only for highly active editors who engage the vandals first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's one view. Others have viewed blanking without notice as more disruptive than an actual MFD discussion. There's also no way to tell it's unfounded absent people watching the blanking. And as someone who has had to deal with users in the World's Oldest People space and various versions of Indian film biographies and the like, it is an unnecessary nuisance that can come back weeks and months later because it does not solve the actual behavior issues, namely instructing editors that they should either learn to work together on the mainspace version or go somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there is room for that debate. I don't think it has been played out before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After one year stale drafts should be deleted or moved to mainspace. Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 1 year can be given a one time extension of six months.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Moving userpage drafts that are not within your own userspace to the article namespace because it has higher standards is inappropriate, especially if they have already survived MfD. It is basically flippantly asserting disagreement with the policies and guidelines about what should be kept in what manner in a specific namespace, and then proceeding to unilaterally move it to another with harsher standards. These of moves should be treated like any if other and reverted since there are challenges against them, and the move should be discussed. The AfDs should then be closed as the improper forum. In regard to how the specific content mentioned at the beginning of this section: WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Back on point

Let's get back to the main point here. Legacypac has been moving pages from userspace to mainspace, pages it seems like he doesn't believe will pass GNG. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, Legacypac listed the page for deletion (but there was no discussion about the actual draft at MFD) but that discussion was largely more about the "move to mainspace and then list for deletion" and ultimately was deleted, arguments aside. Otherwise, there are two instances where I closed an MFD discussion as moot because the page had already been moved to mainspace and then I separately listed the pages for deletion, both of which resulted in them being moved, one to draft and one returned. Fine, you can say I should have been more aggressive with both MFD closes (moving Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds to draftspace rather than let it go in mainspace and forcibly moving the other page back) but I think that's beyond my job here. There's no evidence other than the typical ridiculous speculation that this was some tagged-team effort to get the pages taken to mainspace for deletion and there's zero actual evidence that, other than Graffiki case, that Legacypac is actually moving these pages to mainspace to "game" them into an AFD for deletion. As seen above, we have some serious issues with the process at MFD which only can be solved with more eyes and people perhaps working out better explanation and methodologies than just accusing all the nominator (or also the admins closing these things) of being part of some grand conspiracy to I don't know "destroy" the userspace drafts from people who haven't been around here for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You'd need to show that Legacypac is not doing this in good faith. A lot of pages hang around in userspace for ever and should be either nuked under CSD U5 or kicked over the line into mainspace to sink or swim on their own merits. If the user is active then there's no problem, but if all they have ever done is write a userspace article on their band or whatever then housekeeping takes over. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you Guy. I'm not aware of any rule that says an editor can't start an article about something that turns out to fail AfD (most active editors have done that) and there is similarly no rule that says you can't promote a draft from draft or user space that fails an AfD. We have all been surprised that various articles pass or fail AfD so none of us have a perfect ability to predict what meets GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on rules. The purpose of Wikipedia is mainspace. Everythign else is subsidiary. A user who has not edited in years, whose user space is cluttered with personal web space or advertorial, is not contributing. If a user in good faith believes these articles are intended by the user - who is no longer around to ask - as genuine attempts at encyclopaedia content, then what's the problem with moving them to mainspace? Regardless oft heir objective encyclopaedic merit, this can be charitably interpreted is an attempt to actually help a user achieve what they presumably set out to do. And if the page is a no-hoper, then inactive users don't get indefinite free web hosting. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on obfuscation. Personal web space and advertorials have never been OK, are readily deleted, and are not relevant to this discussion. You appear to advocate that drafts should never be in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's anything actually contrary to policy or that qualifies as gaming were Legacypac intentionally moving drafts to mainspace so they could be run through AfD. A long-untouched draft in draftspace or userspace that is kept at MfD carries a strong implication that MfD considers it viable as a possible article. If there's consensus at MfD that a draft is viable then Legacypac would only be acting in line with that consensus to push it to mainspace. If anything, the disruption is coming from MfD itself, which allows drafts about non-encyclopedic subjects to be kept because there's a consensus against broadly applying WP:N to draftspace and userspace. If there's a consensus that a draft cannot be moved to mainspace because the subject is not notable, then why are we keeping it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day. Everything in WP:NOT bristles against the very idea that we should indefinitely host drafts of articles on non-viable subjects. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mendaliv, if that is you opinion, there is an open RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F awaiting your input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't even get thinly disguised 2011 link spam deleted at MfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SE19991/Move_Management Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion earlier. This does appear to be a pretty clear case of gaming the system. People are frustrated that MfD isn't working the way they want it to and are mixing in bogus CSDs and moves of an article to mainspace in order to delete it. This is clearly a behavioral problem. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Broaden NoIndex

Someone suggested broadening the No Indexing above. Let's no index MfD because it mainly deals with pages that are no index now. Also apply No Index to the stale draft category and similar. I don't know how to do that, but it would sure reduce how much prominance we are giving to junk by sending it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the header as I presume this is meant for the discussion above. I suggest that topic be taken to WT:MFD as it's not appropriate for ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably no discussion necessary. MfD is already in the robots.txt. WP:NOINDEX seems to also argue that you might also want to NOINDEX those pages? I'm not sure. Pinging TheDJ who added that point to WP:NOINDEX. If correct, we'd want to add <includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly> to {{Mfd2}}. This would get all new MfDs, but not ones that are open now (since {{Mfd2}} is substed), but those would get noindexed when closed. MfDs closed before September 8, 2009 probably don't have the NOINDEX flag either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Broader question

Question: given that the overall view here seems to be in agreement that Legacypac (or at least me) are not doing anything wrong, does anyone find the antics of the keep voters getting to be disruptive? Currently, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth is being debated with the new opposition that WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply whenever a page is listed as a draft as all drafts are permitted indefinitely as long as the magic template:userspace draft is on the page (if that's actually policy, I'm going to move to delete the template as ridiculous). At some point, these argument fall beyond typical disagreement into the world of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and just plain belligerency. No one in particular but I'd like outside views on whether it really should be this difficult to delete decade-old-copies of Adolf Hitler's page, copies of WWI, copyrighted copies of Facebook posts, copies of Mongolian press releases marketing stocks and the like. Note that we still do not have a close on whether admins are permitted to relist MFD discussions and the current conduct at MFD has been that: (a) admins relisting discussions get reverted by non-admins who then accuse them of doing it as part of a "deletionist cabal" while (b) non-admins are free to relist discussions and close discussions without question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What else is starting to become bothersome are the endless WP:NOTBURO-violative keeps on the grounds that the nom wasn't phrased with the right magic words, and should be kept for failure to state a claim (and I don't believe that's an exaggeration of what's been happening). Wikipedia isn't a court of law. Maybe MfD isn't AfD, but I would still expect !voters to do their own homework when they !vote: A number of times now I've gone in and checked MfDs after keeps have been lodged and found that something was a userspace copy, or a copyvio, or something else that not only should be deleted, but must be deleted. Yes, perhaps some editors could spend a little more time doing background on stale draft noms, but two wrongs don't make a right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the MfD "Keep" !voters are either misunderstanding, gaming, being incorrectly point-y, or just disliking Legacypac. If at MfD a long-gone user's draft is !voted Keep as possibly notable or for some other reason, the next obvious step is mainspace and AfD. No harm done, and any usable content will be kept and made useful that way. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here except to pile-on Legacypac for doing diligent cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: My take is pretty simple - I would like to see some centralized discussion rather than the "this is what we do now regardless of the relevant guideline" approach. Now, Mendaliv may be right that that borders on WP:NOTBURO territory, but when we are talking >10k drafts it makes sense to be methodical: if we are going to IAR every one of these, why do we have the guideline in the first place? In particular, it seems to me that a significant majority of these MfD nominations are simple enough to be determined en masse, by criteria rather than individually. That's the superior way to decide - more consistent, but much more importantly it keeps MfD reserved for content that actually needs community discussion.

If anything, recent consensus at centralized discussion locations has resulted in the opposite of support for expanded deletion in user space, ie this discussion at WT:N. Based on that alone, I think characterizing "inclusionist" votes at MfD as disruptive is a little much, and risks fostering an "us vs them" mentality that is just not going to be helpful. There is an open RfC at WT:UP regarding user space drafts that participants in this thread should join. I also just started a discussion on a (I think pretty straightforward) process improvement over at WT:CSD which would marginally help the "MfD becoming a rubber stamp" concern (U5 was a bigger step already). I also think there is an opportunity to expand nomination of the more objectionable drafts Mendaliv mentions under existing G criteria. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that userspace drafts should not be allowed indefinitely is a pretty fair reading of the relevant guidelines and arguing that we need further discussion to have further discussion to actually discuss that seems like another hurdle created to actually disrupt the majority of those discussions. Was there really a need to have two separate RfCs on whether or not admins can relist discussions? Is there really a need to argue that WP:UP policy doesn't apply because the person put template:userspace draft on their page? You have been here many year, do you seriously believe that? I mean, seriously. Are these drafts actually worth saving? The real frustration is that there is no evidence of actual opposition about the actual context, the text, not one person has gone to DRV or requested restoration or REFUND or the host of ways to actually get the content back. We never see someone saying "wait, this is actually good, let me or even someone else work on it and make it into mainspace" but instead it is over the top personal attacks of "you are being rude, you are being mean, you are terrible human beings out to destroy people's work" none of which have anything to do with the actual goal of finding stuff that is actually useful and worth working on. An editor created something four, five, six years ago. If it was in mainspace, the pearl-clutching idiocy about offending them by deleting their stuff would be ignore in a second. If that is deleted, and an edtior returns after many years, they can ask around and have it restored in their userspace or the like. But because they put in their own userspace (which was what they were *told to do*), it's suddenly the most important thing on earth to protect. Here, the editor gets a note on their talk page, a link to an active discussion on the matter and in the minute chance that the editor returns, they can follow the path and ask around and get it back. It is literally no different than if the original had been created in mainspace Is that a terrible, horrible thing that actively requires rounds and rounds of discussions about the process of relistings, about whether the wording within the actual nomination references the fact that a mainspace version was created two years after it, two years before, the day before, the day after when there's no hint of a connection between the two? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but what you way WP:UP says doesn't seem to match the actual content of WP:STALEDRAFT - hence the RfC I started seeking clarification as to whether the status quo wording actually matches consensus. I haven't looked at the MfD closure RfCs enough to have any informed opinion. I hadn't noticed the "userspace draft template" argument before either, so I guess I would need a diff. As I pointed out to Legacypac earlier, pulling salvageable drafts into mainspace doesn't require any deletion of the other stuff - the deletion of non-problematic cruft at MfD is busywork at best. Personally, my biggest concern is the dilution of community attention away from the stuff that actually needs discussion at MfD, though the rather flagrant disregard for consensus (or in other cases interest in achieving any sort of consensus) is concerning as well. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 The point for me at least is that the wholesale clearing out of userspace drafts is a very dramatic action that is contrary to consensus as recorded in current guidelines. The clearing out of userspace drafts is unsupported by the MfD landing page ("Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.") and WP:STALEDRAFT ("if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.").

I know your arguments, I disagree and have my own - ultimately we have to follow consensus, which, as recorded in current guidelines, does not indicate that the clearing out of userspace drafts is appropriate. If you want to do this, you have to establish consensus at VP or a similarly central policy venue (not ANI) that stale userspace drafts should be cleared out. IAR deleting an entire type of page is a ridiculous proposition. A2soup (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to argue that this is all against current guidelines when every single category and page this is based on has called this a "backlog" for years. It must be a backlog for some reason, right? Category:Stale userspace drafts for example has since September 2011 suggested taking pages to MFD and was explicitly called a backlog in March 2015. Similarly, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 for again, October 2009 states explicitly that it "combines all userspace drafts from October 2009 (2009-10) to enable us to work through the backlog more systematically." The fact is that "userspace drafts should be left indefinitely" and "WP:UP doesn't actually apply if someone puts a draft notice on their page" have ZERO to do with the current guidelines and are just made-up requirements that have NO consensus to delay it. If you want to change things so that "do not clean-up" means never, never touch a userspace draft and list it for deletion, go ahead but I take the actual deletion policy, the tens of thousands of CSD deletion and MFD deletions much more seriously than the game-playing people are doing by changing the top of MFD, WP:UP and that using that as a stupid justification for what they actually want. No one here made up these categories and these pages. At one point, someone decided that a gigantic 45k page backlog was insane and worked to cut it down. The opposition acts like I just made up this entire ridiculous idea that we actually look and see if people made up garbage in userspace years ago and actually evaluate it. As noted above, only MFD has nonsense arguments about how WP:STALE needs to be deleted, how it's terrible that someone who hasn't been here for nine or ten years would be offended if someone took their work to mainspace or deleted it and other frankly ridiculous debates that have no basis in any reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very weak argument because of its circularity. You obviously don't need me to quote WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, and WP:SILENCE at you to know that a unilateral edit on a low visibility page, years ago is not going to trump recent, well-attended community discussions. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is too drawn-out. Userspace drafts are not to removed, moved, deleted or edited unless it violates Wikipedia policies (not content policies but the basic tenants, including BLP, CSD G). Gamers must be reprimanded, isn't that it? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: No, that doesn't seem to be the conclusion that Ricky is drawing at all. While I don't think he would condone the action that led to this ANI request, he is certainly in favor of deleting stale userspace drafts simply because they are unlikely to be worked on further or become articles, whether or not they are problematic. A2soup (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, it was already discussed and the community made it clear that the answer was no. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion wasn't clear enough I guess. Look at MfD and U5 noms: deletions continue apace. A2soup (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't, I'm afraid I've never gone to MfD in my entire time here, so I wasn't aware of the issue. Editors doing this must be reprimanded and if required, kept out of all business related to this subject. Deliberate flaunting is already established rules just sets precedent for more misdemeanours. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence of gaming unless you believe the unsupported claims that various editors are working in conjunction. Otherwise, WP:STALE permits their move after a certain period of time. Why should a perfectly good draft of an article sit in a user's userspace for all time if they don't return? Pages are moved to draftspace or even mainspace. Blanking is another option and deletion is another. If you look at MFD, most of the pages listed there for discussion are pages where there exists the same or related content in mainspace already or a few now where it's pretty close to U5-level of a promotional page that also hasn't been edited in years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would seriously consider your opinion if you had made no edits to that page but the fact is that you have, without any community vetting, not just you. You have an agenda and you've pushed it long enough, just let the reins go dude. I prefer the policy be reverted to a 2015 version and we hold a discussion on it, right now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to canvass, but if you've never been to MfD, you should go and make a few !votes. If you care about this, it's important to actually get a sense of the debate. A2soup (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I understand that the backlog was made to be worked through, and I don't advocate not working through the backlog. I just argue that recategorizing or blanking+templating is a better way to work through it than deletion in almost all cases. And where there are written guidelines, they indicate that deletion is not an appropriate way to work through it either. The rest of your response is just repeating your arguments for deletion. On that point, where in "actual deletion policy" is it stated that non-problematic userspace drafts are eligible for deletion?

Again, if you wish to delete an entire type of page, no matter how right you think you are, you need to establish a central consensus for an action that dramatic. This would be the case even if these deletions did not contradict current guidelines (which they do). Apart from the question of whether deletion is appropriate or not, do you agree that consensus is required to proceed? A2soup (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been repeated proposals to delete WP:STALE in full. Those have been rejected. Removing the deletion component has been rejected. The amount of time seems to have consensus. Quibbling with language likw the "if not problematic" language leads to the obvious issue of what is and what isn't problematic. Arguing that "nothing" is problematic because all drafts are to be remain forever (including drafts of Adolf Hitler's page after a decade) is far from being a real discussion and seem more like arguments to argue. G6 expanded to include blank Article Wizard drafts and people there argued to create categories of blank userspace draft pages and that was rejected. It seems that when we get beyond the individual people who repeatedly just reflexively oppose at MFD, the larger consensus supports that nine or ten year old drafts that don't look viable aren't supported by the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can you point to where there was a central consensus to delete userspace drafts after a fixed time period? The discussion is too fragmented for me to follow all the parts. Also, I don't argue that nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion - that is a straw man. For example, I think any promotion is problematic enough to warrant blanking, and some is severe enough to warrant deletion (although G11 would probably apply in those cases). Hoaxes are problematic enough to warrant deletion, as is blatant vandalism ("This is the article about my dick."). No one thinks nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion, the question is whether staleness or lack of potential is problematic enough to warrant deletion. And again, I'd love to see the central consensus that it is. A2soup (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that MFD discussions from May 2008 looked at inactivity when evaluating drafts is evidence about deleting drafts. There is no "central" consensus because the central consensus is created from the discussions, not created and then forced down on the discussions (contrary to the demands above). You have been demanding "show me the central consensus" when I keep saying it doesn't exist because there is no hard and fast rule but there is evidence that people have for years rejected the blatant "userspace drafts can be held indefinitely" approach advocated above. There is no requirement for a fixed period of time and no one has argued that. I proposed the language in note 2 at WP:STALE because it wasn't clear and before that, people just went by page inactivity alone and I asked to include editor inactivity as well. It's been argued on "the editor and the page hasn't been touched since date XX", X usually being a year or further. There are some discussions where six months is the metric used (based off G13) so we may be moving towards a shorter time period than before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. There is no consensus. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If your standard for "consensus" is "arguments used in deletion discussions", I can point you to plenty of more recent deletion discussions in which the argument is made that staleness and lack of potential do not indicate deletion. And, again, deleting an entire type of page without consensus would be problematic even if it was uncontroversial. Such dramatic actions can't be unilaterally carried out by a few editors. The fact that there is significant opposition to the deletions makes proceeding without consensus even more problematic. A2soup (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing absolute nonsense arguments at MfD against deleting stale stuff from long gone editors. Instead of moving one unreferenced biography directly to mainspace after it was kept at MfD I moved it to draftspace (as allowed) and that was reverted by VQuakr saying I can't do that. So now we have a page stuck in userspace again forever. I sent it back to MfD and was accused of bad faith. This disruption is being caused by editors that have no experience with processing stale drafts. They have no interest in cleanup - they just want to throw insults and start poorly worded RfCs to gain consensus to support their stupidity. Maybe topic bans from MfC are in order soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, I realize we have tumbled far enough down Graham's hierarchy that this is unlikely to get resolved solely through direct interaction between us, but can you try to step back and look at this objectively? This history on this is public and what you were trying to do was readily apparent even without the context of this thread:

• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert consensus was to keep. Your promise to disrupt the draft if kept was met with mild disdain.
• Two days after that MfD closure, you moved it to Draft namespace and slapped an AfC tag on it. There was no consensus to do this at the deletion discussion; indeed at that discussion another editor recommended that you "leave it where it is."
• Your bad-faith attempt to end run around the MfD consensus using G13 was immediately caught by a previously uninvolved editor, who removed the AfC template. You responded by tagbombing the draft and (ironically) adding it to the stale userspace drafts category.
• Five days later, yet another editor not involved with the MfD (me) reverted the rest of your disruption by moving it back to its original location.

Somehow, your takeaway from this seems to be that you are a victim here. I'm just not seeing it. Your sneering contempt for consensus is a problem because this is a collaborative encyclopedia - you don't get to ignore community feedback simply because you don't like what you hear. This sort of stuff is disruptive in several different ways that have been explored in this thread. I think there is an opportunity to streamline your draft rescuing effort and our guidelines, but your flouting of policy makes progress virtually impossible. And really, your reaction to editors pointing out that your bulk MfD nominations have no consensus is to propose topic bans? VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dangerous to mention GNG at MfD

The notion that WP:N has no application AT ALL and is forbidden to be considered AT ALL in MfD is being applied with no WP:COMMONSENSE. It's getting to the place where you get dragged to ANi for even talking about GNG in an MfD. Some examples:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Akira1111/New article name here
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikip rhyre/Systems architecture review board (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Fshussain/Bullet_Quarterly
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose

Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is quite true given the below discussion to have you topic banned from MfD. Frightening. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac openly defying a directly related, snow closed, RfC

Moved from another thread at ANI

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

[11]

The RfC was here: WT:N#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?.

Note preceding messages and Legacypac's headstrong defiance of community standards.

Legacypac needs to be warned to comply with community consensus. WP:N does not apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A poorly worded RfC does not override a raft of policy, precedent, and WP:COMMONSENSE. SmokeyJoe failed to get consensus for his views just a few sections up [12] and now is busy attacking me here, on my talk page, and elsewhere [13] Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• This thread seems like a variation on WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since it's merely a continuation of the thread on the exact same subject the OP started five days ago. Suggest that it be combined into that thread, and suggest the OP watch out for flying pieces of wood. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Legacypac: I asked this in good faith on your talk page, but it was removed with the edit summary "go read up on policy". My question is directly based in policy. "'Stale draft found' move summary inquiry: When you move userspace drafts to the article namespace, you are asserting that they in your opinion they have the qualities required for the mainspace per WP:STALEDRAFT point #1 (i.e. 'If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace'), correct? Otherwise the guideline doesn't apply, and I'm curious what policy or guideline your using to justify the moves." From reading your most recent comment above [now edited], your argument is that you're ignoring the rules (WP:COMMON which invokes WP:IAR). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a series of questions posed to me on my talkpage, and my answers have been quickly misinterpreted and used against me elsewhere. So yes, go read up on policy. If you have a specific question about a specific move, ask it, but the question posed reads to me as a trap to get me to say I'm not following policy. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, you admit that you are deliberately not following policy. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• If these nominations are a violation of policy, point it out in the MFD and see if an admin will close it based on that. The answer most likely will be no because no one cares about the technical WP:BURO games that come from "the nomination didn't state the exact date and time and explicit diff of what was copied and therefore based on its failure to provide an explicit basis for deletion, a draft from an editor who hasn't been here in half a decade must be kept" are going to be ignored. It's not like these old pages are going away if they are ignored; someone will take it to MFD again and unless the "pages should here forever" crowd sticks around for all time, they will either be (a) deleted; (b) adopted by someone; or (c) argued until we do this again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Legacypac

It's been going on long enough. And he won't give up. I hereby propose:

Legacypac is indefinitely topic-banned from all subjects in relation to userspace drafts. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than 12 months after this case was closed and if rejected, every 6 months thereafter. He is also warned that any further gaming of the system or involvement in the topic, will lead to his account getting banned under the discretion of an independent administrator.

In case anyone wants a summary:

• Legacypac deliberately gamed the system in order to get userspace drafts deleted by moving them to mainspace and imposing notability guidelines. Links: [14] [15].
• Legacypac also subverted rules and converted userspace drafts to AfC drafts to get them deleted under G13. [16]
• Previous discussion here.
• Legacypac (talk · contribs) (click contribs and see, this guy is literally an anti-userspace draft person, whatever that is)
• Introduced a change in policy based on his own interpretation of established guidelines. [17]
• Legacypac insists that COMMONSENSE is more important then already established consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?. [18]
• Unrelated: There's been continuous modification of Wikipedia:User pages by people for their own agenda, so I've reverted it to a 2015 version.

I hope I've said enough. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Legacypac's actions have been BOLD, and have generally stopped where there's been an indication that those test cases have failed. Furthermore, most of the evidence claimed here has nothing to do with MfD, but either policy pages, CSD or AfD. As such, the ban proposal is malformed and would not address the claimed disruption. This, rather, seems entirely related to the fact that Legacypac believes that WP:N is relevant to MfD: The RfC only concluded that notability was not controlling on drafts. Many of the opinions voiced there believed that a notability-like analysis might be persuasive. But let's assume I'm wrong about that, and that Legacypac's !votes and argument above are wrong. Last I heard, having an unpopular opinion wasn't a bannable offense. Let's not use the banhammer to silence opposition. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  Let me write it out for you.

  • Gaming the system = NOTBOLD
  • Modifying policies and basing deletions on that = NOTBOLD

  Did you know that WP:STALE has been modified over 30 times without any consensus whatsoever? Unpopular opinion isn't a bannable offense but enforcing your opinion without community vetting is. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • • First, I don't agree that gaming is happening. Second, changing policies isn't going to get changed by a MfD ban. I just don't get it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How not? You move pages from userspace to mainspace or you nominate it for AfC and it gets deleted due to the stricter rules we impose on them? Did you not read Martin's explanation? Oh, I see you did except that you don't really care about what's happening, you'll support him because he was BOLD, even though it's causing quite a disruption here at ANI and elsewhere. You have no argument, my friend, nor does Legacypac. This thing has blown wide open, it's your call whether you want a slap on the wrist or complete annihilation (for dramatic effect). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given it's been shown that Legacypac did not modify WP:STALE as many times as you imply by giving the number of modifications as evidence of Legacypac's disruption, I think there's sufficient reason to doubt the entire rationale for banning without even looking any further. But let's just look at what's left. Legacypac tried some new things to see if that would break the deadlock around MfDs. They are things I wouldn't have done myself, but what disruption has been wrought? That drafts have been nominated? Then argue against Legacypac's rationales... as you and many others already have done. Win your arguments on the merits, not by drop-kicking your opponent out of the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Meritless and false accusations like "enforcing your opinion without community vetting" is not what Legacypac is doing -- he's not an admin and can't "enforce" anything. Nor has he "modified [WP:STALE] over 30 times without any consensus whatsoever"; he has made exactly two edits to WP:STALE: [19]. I agree with Mendaliv above. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said he modified it 30 times. Maybe if you paid enough attention you'd know where the issue is. I had clearly said the section was edited over 30 times overall count. I've even gone so far as to revert it to an old version and get it protected. He's had his way with userspace drafts and he thinks everyone should do the same, so far as adding his own point to the section. By enforcing, I mean that he put it in our faces, hope you got that, but you didn't. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, in your proposal you threw in a lot of issues completely unrelated to Legacypac in order to make a case for him to be topic banned. And you admit to trying to enforce your own opinion without community consensus (reverting Wikipedia:User pages to a 2015 version and then getting your preferred version full-protected) -- something you actually falsely accused Legacypac of doing in your proposal? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that. That's some very clever phrasing, QEDK. Very clever. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm the culprit if I restore status quo but when Legacypac introduced a change, that's fine? I never said my version was perfect (which you can see in the RFPP request) but atleast it's not tainted. Furthermore, I don't see how, what I said could be perceived as sly since I clearly wrote whatever I had written, if you missed it, it's your fault. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Throwing out a statistic like that in the middle of a ban discussion in order to bolster an argument that Legacypac should be banned is tantamount to saying Legacypac did it, or was responsible for it. Or are you not intending to argue that Legacypac should be topicbanned when you comment in this subthread? Honestly, contextually, if you intended it the way you claim you intended it, it would serve to work against the argument that there was consensus that Legacypac has been violating. If anything, there's a dispute. Presumably enough of one that thirty edits by multiple editors took place. Testing the boundaries of that dispute by making bold edits is an assertive, but entirely acceptable, technique to narrowing the field of a discussion. You can't have it both ways here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding this [20] "# If potentially suitable for mainspace but needs more work, move to draftspace to expose it to active editors" to a checklist that has long been introduced with "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing." is hardly a policy change. It is also very consistent with Wikipedia:Drafts. This clarification is obviously not going to be used to justify deletion. The other accusations are old and have been dismissed above and elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen them getting dismissed elsewhere. Do provide links when you say anything at all. As for the first part of your statement, may I suggest you quit for acting. You don't move pages across namespace for any reason other than that you want their deletion. You're the personification of deletionism, my friend. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, I've moved dozens of drafts into mainspace I quite like. You can find example in the logs.

And for the record, I do not believe that GNG fully controls Drafts (ie we should quickly delete drafts that don't meet GNG instead of giving an editor a chance to show N) but WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that a test against GNG for a draft no one is working on is appropriate, and that if there is no reasonable hope of meeting GNG we should delete the page. That is not a fringe view here, just look at the way people vote at MfD and comments in this thread. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to? Why are you doing it? Because you like it? Seriously? Not to mention, some of your moves have been deleted too (not to mention the ones you nominated or voted on), so you're the one who got it deleted you see. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to propose this topic ban? Why are you doing it? Because you like it? Seriously? Also, making a move (or even filing or !voting on an AfD or XfD) does not equate to getting something deleted. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You must be sick in your mind if you think I'm doing this because I like it. I'm doing it because I respect this community and the policies on which it runs. Making a move is different than tag-teaming which has been long going on in MfD nominations, not to mention the gaming moves. I'm not going to reply anymore to any of you, unless ofcourse you find a factual mistake in any arguments, in which case I'll be liable to fix it. Good day to you and your band. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just quoting to you the exact same language you used to Legacypac. If that makes you "sick in your mind" for using that language, then so be it. And I see now you are throwing in even more issues completely unrelated to Legacypac: tag-teaming. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs needed. Stating that there is a draft deletionist cabal is a serious accusation. Given the WP:BOOMERANG appears to be hovering close, I think it would be a good idea to for an uninvolved admin to take action on my proposal below and just close this thread already. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ffs, have you read the first statement of the thread? It's just a coincidence that you (Mendaliv), Ricky and Legacypac seem to really involved in MfDs. I don't know what you mean by BOOMERANG, I've never participated in a MfD in my life and I'm completely uninvolved. And, I don't know why you would say the language made me sick, it was the assumption that I wanted to give out topic bans like candy which made me sick, furthermore, Legacypac clearly said he likes the articles and hence moves them, which is exactly why I said what I said. As I said, unless you find factual errors, please don't request me to reply, if you don't understand, you don't, don't ask me for explanations when you're not ready to accept the truth. Good luck. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where you say above that there's a long-standing pattern of tag-teaming in MfDs, did you mean that not to refer to myself, Ricky, or Legacypac? If so, why are you mentioning it at all in this ban proposal subthread? If, on the other hand, as the most logical reading of your statement suggests, you are accusing Legacypac, Ricky and myself of being part of some anti-draft cabal, it would behoove you to provide diffs demonstrating this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never participated in a MfD in my life[...] cough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban is overkill. Legacypac is moving many mainspace-quality abandoned-looking userpages to mainspace, and is CSD-tagging promotion. That is not the issue or the problem.

Instead, Legacypac needs a warning to heed the community clear consensus that notability is not a deletion reason for drafts, and to be more conservative in CSD tagging. In particular, he needs to be warned to not deliberately move acceptable userspace to mainspace without sincerely believing that the meet WP:N and WP:STUB. He needs this warning due to his belligerent rejection of the RfC and of several other messages posted to his talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Way less than 1% of my CSDs get turned down=>no problem. I'm not in the habit of moving thing to main that don't meet N=>no problem. The untrue accusations need to stop. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why then, did you turn off you CSD log? Why don't you turn it back on? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall turning it off and I've never been able to turn it on. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac,

Go to your preferences;

Go to Gadgets

Under Browsing find twinkle, which I assume you have turned on and are using. End of line click (preferences)

Under Speedy deletion (CSD) check Keep a log in usserspace of all CSD nominations.

I personally think it should be mandatory. Not everyone believes in reviewing the workings of the project, but some do, and keeping logs is no hindrance. Certainly Twinkle is a wonderful time saver. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

All of you keep your witch-hunt going against userspace drafts, it will get back to you, probably not today, not anytime soon. You've said on your talk page that you're moving drafts to mainspace just to get them deleted. The reason a draft article is draft is because it's not suitable for mainspace, yet that is exactly where you're moving, you've said multiple times that "be careful what you accuse me of", "accusations need to stop" but you're doing everything against policy and well, now there's a wall of text due to Mendaliv's and Softlavender's opposes and my explanation preventing anyone from doing something actionable, so I guess you got what you wanted. I doubt this will go anywhere soon, maybe it would if people looked into the issue instead of skimming through it but I have no expectations. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, obviously. I don't think anyone disagrees that WP:N doesn't apply to MfD, but I also don't think anyone reasonably disagrees that content that has a miniscule chance of leading to anything positive for the project should be indefinitely hosted in the userspace. Trying to equate consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to MfD with consensus that potential usefulness to the project cannot be considered at MfD is in defiance of all common sense. Both sides in this dispute need to calm down. As I said when this discussion first opened, Legacy's actions here are seriously problematic. But so are the actions of those on the other side who've reverted WP:User pages back to a 2015 revision, undoing months of compromising edits to get it to a stable version, and then requested full page protection (which was granted for a month, for some reason, despite the revert to 2015 being the only revert in the last 24 hours). There needs to be a de-escalation here. This conflict is on a trajectory straight toward ArbCom, which is a bit nuts. ~ Rob^Talk 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As a side note, the underlying issue here is that a very small subset of editors (a dozen, maybe) are regularly going to MfD while the rest stay away. While keeping your distance from MfD seems like a decent strategy recently, new blood is badly needed. Both sides have dug in more than is healthy and are voting without the perspective of "does this help the encyclopedia?" Again, not singling out any one individual or side by saying this. Frankly, it's true all around. I've been slightly active in the area over the past three days or so, and really, it's been eye-opening. So if you have some time to brave the MfD discussions, it would be helpful. ~ Rob^Talk 14:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose When someone can point out a single MFD that was overturned at DRV, then they can argue that these MFD are being closed incorrectly or are wrongfully listed. Changing the header at MFD and changing WP:UP unilaterally and without discussion and then using those changes as a basis for MFD discussions is more gamesmanship than moving people to articlespace and leaving them alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This move and delete nomination isn't "leaving them alone".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So one discussion that did result in the page being deleted is sufficient for such an expansive topic ban? Clearly you're being fair and balance here I see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative admonishment

Legacypac shouldn't be topic banned at this time, especially indefinitely, but warned.
I propose:

Legacypac is admonished for moving pages from the user namespace to the article namespace, and then nominating them for deletion under the higher standards of that namespace. They are directed to refrain from moving pages in the user or draft namespaces to the main namespace unless the pages reasonably meet the core content policies, or they can gain consensus from the community otherwise on the issue.

• Their actions are direct contradiction to the guideline which they have continuously referred to and is applicable to such moves.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide 5 diffs for these supposed moves [21] that I then allegedly nominated to delete [22]? Cause if you can't I propose you be WP:BOOMARANG admonished for making a nonsense attempt to admonish me.

Since that's gonna be really hard, maybe instead you can explain why you and your friends are so insistent on protecting WP:HOAX WP:SPAM WP:NOTAWEBHOST from an account that did nothing else many years ago here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here? I think some admonishment for that disruption is in order. And nice "no ping" so I might miss this User:Godsy Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You do it because you know it will eventually get deleted. Also, you're only to be pinged for the main thread not for every subsection. You all should stop overusing the term BOOMERANG when it's not applicable. He just made a factual error. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh... so the basis of the proposed crime is not that I move pages and then nominate them for deletion, but that you think I'm psychic. I think we've all seen enough of this nonsense QEDK. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha, no. Quoting you from your talk page, Yes, I read them. It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied. Them = drafts it = stale draft rules :) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote is quite true. Your spin on it is quite false. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

K. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac and QEDK: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki (move and nomination) is an example of where a page was moved from the user namespace then nominated for deletion under the higher standards (AfD has higher standards on what can exist than MfD due to the namespaces they cover). I wasn't referring to speedy deletions. I wanted to link to Legacypac's username, hence I did so, I was under no obligation to send a notification. It seems the text of my proposal has been misinterpreted, perhaps the language could be clearer, I'd be happy to amend it if anyone has a suggestion. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I missed it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thirty Four, Richard d'Anjolell. Der-shing Helmer amounts to the same. And puttering around doing other things for hours while drafts you've just moved to mainspace have A7 tags stuck to them (extreme example at Bloom Consulting Country Branding Ranking; there's plenty of others) - not moving them back to userspace, not improving them, not even contesting them on Talk: - isn't the action of a rational person who thinks an article really is viable. —Cryptic 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic I never sought deletion on those so they are not good examples and yes I thought they were reasonably viable, and certainly that they would survive MfD. You are essentially accusing me of not taking WP:OWNership. If I spent hours improving every article I'd never make progress on [23] this maintenance category. Further how does your actions [24] measure against this policy [25] and this one [26] Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, the repetition in these conversations makes it hard to think that you are taking them seriously.

• The maintenace category you refer to does not require you to do these things.
• Cryptic reversed a bad faith action on your part, one repeatedly criticized by several others.
• The so called "policy", Wikipedia:Drafts that you reference, is not, in fact, a policy, and neither does it apply to userspace. It appears you are patently non-conversant with Wikipedia:Policy, which makes it galling when you, on your talk page, tell others to "go read up on policy".
• The last two links are unclear as to what you thinking, or how they support your position, but most likely it is your position that because some (non-policy) page allows for the possibility of something, there is to be no stopping you from doing it.

All of this speaks directly to the point that Legacypac requires a warning (warning of blocking for disruption) to stop taking actions that lead to the deletions of others' drafts, at least until policy of draft management is clarified. Legacypac clearly needs this warning to be in simple terms, as he is prepared to ignore something due to his alleging it is "badly worded". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, we don't have a shred of evidence of actual gamesmanship. This entire thread is based on three examples, of which one was actually moved by Legacypac, taken to AFD with an explicit explanation that this was the purpose and then deleted at AFD. The other two weren't even taken to MFD by him and of those, one was returned to the original space and the other moved to draftspace. The same crowd that's disrupting MFD with relisting fighting, fighting over movement of drafts, and frankly making bizarre keep arguments are simply moving to topic ban everyone they disagree with when there have yet to be a single discussion taken to DRV and overturned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Per WP:GAME: "If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive." Legacypac clearly expresses gamesmanship (i.e. "a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards") in this move summary (i.e. "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying"). The admonishment correlates to "[these type of actions] should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake" (first half). To prevent, all my proposed remedy does is disallow further actions of this type, unless the community approves it (second half). The only reason I can see to oppose this is disinterest in forming a consensus on the issue. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What loophole or trick? The evidence is that Legacypac moved pages to mainspace. Out of that, there's literally one instance where he conducted an AFD asking people about what to do and it was deleted. Otherwise, there are literally two other instance where *I* listed the pages at AFD and both were returned. Does the fact that an AFD result goes against me mean that Legacypac was wrong in move? What about all the moves that were ignored? Again, other than rampant speculation that I'm colluding with Legacypac, where is the evidence that Legacypac is actually moving these pages for the purpose of taking them to AFD? If he is, he's doing an amazingly piss poor job of accomplishing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Already explained part of this before, but I can do it again: "where is the evidence that Legacypac is actually moving these pages for the purpose of taking them to AFD?": move summary - "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying - and nomination. "What loophole or trick?": moving a page because "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" and trying them at AfD is the loophole."What about all the moves that were ignored?": Userspace drafts should not be moved to the article space, especially by users to whom they do not belong, unless they reasonably meet the core content polices per WP:STALEDRAFT ("stale draft found" a common move summary by Legacypac asserting at face value that drafts are no longer fresh isn't currently a justification itself for moves). If the pages moved met those required standards, it is unlikely anyone would nominated them for deletion. Otherwise the moves are an attempt to circumvent (loophole gamesmanship again) the current rules governing the user namespace. Approx. 20 page moves from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac this year have resulted one way or another in deletion (I expect more will suffer the same fate if some of the moves aren't reverted). That's too many too assume the page moves were being done in good faith because they met the required standards of the article namespace. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

This thread's been open a week. Most of the discussion here belongs elsewhere. The topic ban proposal notwithstanding (but see my arguments above indicating that the entire proposal is flawed), I think most of the returning participants here need to find a more quiet corner to draft proposals, rather than just sniping at each other (I've been guilty of that here too). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This thread was closed by JJMC89, a non-admin who has been here less than a year. I undid the (apparently good-faith) close, for the simple reason that an authoritative close on such a long and complex and contentious thread should not be done by a non-admin. If the user has some advice or suggestions they would like to provide, they are welcome to do so here. However I would suggest that per standard operating procedure, non-admins should only close threads that are simple and already resolved. Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Concur. It was a well-intentioned NAC, but I wouldn't have taken the extra step of moving for a close if I expected it to be uncontroversial. And given this was reopened, and spawned (what I think is) a request for a close review over at AN at almost the same moment, we can place this in the controversial pile. Anyway, as I said in my motion to close, those of us close to this case should be trying to come together in a less heated environment, lay our cards on the table, and discuss our individual policy ideas as a prelude to hashing out a proposal... or at least come to a consensus as to what's going on with drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • • Agree largely with Mendaliv. Legacypac is being bold, his boldness is being called reckless, he should stop, and the community needs to work to finding a consensus. Continued bold page moves and deletion tagging is not helpful. Ways forward are already on the table. At WT:CSD, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A_criteria_in_draftspace.2C_again, there is a kernel of agreement that CSD D criteria are needed for drafts. I suggest that these speedy criteria should be analogous to the A criteria, but worded differently, and apply to drafts wherever they are. Similarly, we are lacking a guideline on management of drafts. The few lines written wt WP:UP, WP:STALE, were not intended for this purpose, and are not adequate, most obviously because drafts are not limited to userspace. Work towards a consensus is hindered by persistence of bold actions clearly challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe - please substantiate that I'm doing "Continued bold page moves and deletion tagging" or take a WP:BOOMERANG week out of MfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that you were making bold pages moves, or bold CSD taggings? Or do you mean that you have stopped or reduced these things? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, Legacypac. Point-scoring behavior is not what we need right now. We all need to come together on this and figure out where policy should be going. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Close - no action: This is getting a bit absurd. I really can't believe people are essentially fighting about whether or not to delete non-encyclopedic userspace drafts that have been sitting idle for years, where the contributor hasn't even logged in for just as long. Yes, there are some edge cases, obviously, but they are truly edge cases. These wild accusations of teaming, gaming the system, and other inappropriate behaviour seem to violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA and are not at all constructive - the evidence to support these accusations is minor at best. Ricky81682 is simply doing his job as an admin. Legacypac is being bold, yes. From what I can see, he made a good faith move to "test notability". I don't think I agree with the particular move pointed out at the beginning of this thread, but it's not outside of reason, given the discussion leading to it. This vitriol and mudslinging only serves to make us all look bad. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stability before Activity

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I recommend that ya'll suspend your activities in those areas & first decide on how ya'll want things done there. In otherwords - Don't go out on the field again, until you've all decided on how the game should be played. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose We'd like things done like they have been since 2008, namely that editors who stopped editing here four/five/six years ago be treated as if they stopped editing here four/five/six years ago. Screaming and demanding topic bans on people for having the audacity to question opposing deleting a 18-month-old press release in Mongolian under the bizarre argument that those editors somehow should be retained, let alone whether they are even actually contributing here, is doing more to drive away editors actually here than anything that need to be "suspended." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to say again then: Ricky81682 and Legacypac are engaged in tag-teaming GAMING. Their objective is to clear out all old drafts, loosely defined. BOLD, called out and asked to stop, their game is now reckless. Ricky81682 is the author and enabler, Legacypac is clumsily doing the dirty work. Individual pages are not the issue, it is their implementation of their deletion process faster than others capacity to review, and now their refusal to slow down for discussions on policy talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, you've accused me of tag-teaming in relisting discussions, in tag-teaming in closing discussions, in tag-teaming in picking random pages for AFD, the pattern is that I'm somehow tag-teaming wherever I do a single conduct that results in something the opposite of what you want. That is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where there is literally no shred of evidence other than your insane speculation that I'm scheming with everyone because I'm proposing to get ten year copies of Adolf Hitler deleted. Put the evidence up that there's actual co-ordinated scheming here. You have yet to even bother to propose that a single MFD closure be overturned and instead you're been following me around for week reverting relistings and other nonsense after we have discussion after discussion. We even had TWO gigantic wasted RFCs on whether or not admins can relist MFD discussions after you spent weeks hounding me about it and in the end, it was just ranting that you didn't want "indiscriminate" relistings, which literally is nothing more than "I don't any admin to relist something that I personally disagree with because I, SmokeyJoe, should be the sole person who determines when pages at MFD are listed." A more egotistical waste of time I have never seen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. There is a GAME afoot, a highly focused drive to clear out old drafts, to hell with others objections that you (collectively) are pushing the bounds of CSD, Legacypac is using tricks to complete the objective, and as best I can tell, it is really just the two of you. How about we (you and Legacypac) slow down, lets get some Draft-CSD discussed proposed and approved at WT:CSD, let's document a guideline on managing old abandoned drafts - Neither WP:UPNOT or WP:Drafts are doing it. But "No!". You want to formally "Oppose" GoodDay's extremely reasonable proposal. Well, your "Oppose" above demands to called out as inappropriate. It is always appropriate to suspend the disputed activity in favour of build a consensus on how to do it better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Every CSD proposal on the matter has been rejcted for years. An MFD about empty drafts was opposed. The DRV discussion about that was opposed. I proposed using G6 to clear out userspace drafts with just the default Article Wizard text after the editor hasn't been here for a year and that was opposed. I started a discussion about when WP:STALE is relevant and I suggest the reasonable one year period and only afterwards there's screaming that WP:STALE must be completely thrown out entirely after five years because of the exact same opposition and editor re-write WP:UP to whatever idiocy they want and then scream "CONSENSUS! CONSENSUS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BUT I DECLARE IT SO!" I'm sorry but I'm not in the mood for further "stop everything you're doing because I want to singlehandledly and against what the majority of people here consider sensible oppose it" routine from the next individual(s) who makes it their life goal to oppose it reflexively and once that's put in place, they never touch the damn subject again. I've said this before: if you actually give a damn about all these drafts and think they are viable, go to every single MFD and ask to adopt the page and that will put a stop to all the arguing. They'll stuff up your userspace and you can host them forever for all I care. Otherwise, there is literally not one person who cares about your fictional "editor who hasn't been here for ten years and if we delete their copy of Adolf Hitler's page from then, they MAY BECOME SO HEARTBROKEN THAT THEY WERE NEVER RETURN AGAIN and SHAME on you for destroying the minds of those editors who just wanted to copy Hitler's page into their userspace! What will we do without editors who copy mainspace pages without attribution? EDITOR RETENTION! RETENTION!" nonsense. You want to be taken seriously? Propose a middle ground, instead of arguing insanity like "drafts should be kept indefinitely" and demanding topic bans. I've argued for one year of editor inactivity, I've closed these discussions as keep when you're just outnumbering people, I've been more than reasonable here. I'm not the one reverting other people's activities, calling them and screaming about massive collusion and then demanding that they stop or be topic banned when literally no one else believes a word of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at WT:CSD, especially, I think you can see me trying hard to propose a middle ground, and without running ahead of other participants there. Deletion of other people's userpage drafts has always been contentious, and should be. New CSD criteria have always been contentious. I'm sorry that Ricky is not in the mood for patience, but consensus requires patience. Note again that Ricky is loose with details. I never proposed a topic ban. My positions at MfD overwhelmingly are in agreement with the outcome, for ten years and over 1000 MfDs. Recent behaviors over drafts are new, abnormal, and represent a huge policy change over what people may have in their userspace. Clearly, someone needs this to be closed with clarity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Charlotte135's behavior

For months, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented on me at the Charlotte135 talk page in inaccurate and disparaging ways. When I've pointed this out, noting that I would eventually do something about it, Charlotte135 continued, except in ways that do not mention my name; this is seen in spades in this section, which Charlotte135 retitled to take the focus from away from the topic ban. Charlotte135 also has a tendency to follow or track editors Charlotte135 has had significant disputes with, in ways I would categorize as WP:Hounding. For example, as noted here and here, with me, Montanabw and CFCF weighing in, Charlotte135 was hounding Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). And before Charlotte135 claims that it was because of WP:Copyright issues, I advise editors to look closely at that matter; Charlotte135 had started following Shootingstar88 before the WP:Copyright issues drama Charlotte135 became a part of in that case. And now Charlotte135 is following me. And by that, I mean that Charlotte135 has scoped my entire contribution history and is choosing to edit articles I am clearly involved with, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is clear by this inaccurate summary of my and Montanabw's editing, Charlotte135 is very aware of the type of articles I edit. Charlotte135 stated, "It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing." That section shows that Charlotte135 was testing the waters when it comes to what Charlotte135 can edit. For one, the "cursory minimal edits on other types of articles" wording speaks to the way Charlotte135 edits; the vast majority of Charlotte135's edits have been to the domestic violence areas, and related areas, on Wikipedia. Since Charlotte135's topic ban, Charlotte135 has been making minor editors to other articles, as if to indicate "Look everyone, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm branching out." For two, I mainly edit sexual articles, anatomy articles, medical articles, social topics and popular culture topics. And even though I edit many things on this site, Charlotte135 is suddenly popping up at the medical, sexual or gender articles that I heavily edit, including the obscure or relatively low-traffic ones, as seen with this edit made to the Vaginal disease article, and this edit made to the Facesitting article. Coincidence? I think not.

When Charlotte135's topic ban is brought up by me, such as in this recent case at Talk:Domestic violence, where I made a point to note that Charlotte135 was continuing a past dispute soon after the topic ban expired, Charlotte135 goes off on an irrelevant and inaccurate tangent about my block log, as if to try to paint me in a bad light and put us on equal bad footing; as seen here, administrator Boing! said Zebedee thankfully commented on my block log after I once again suggested that Charlotte135 actually get informed on my blocks before repeatedly commenting on them inaccurately. In that same section, I noted to Charlotte135, "You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. [...] I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. [...] Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me." As that section shows, Gandydancer and Johnuniq are also still concerned about Charlotte135's behavior. Whenever Charlotte135's disruptive behavior is addressed, Charlotte135 argues that I am simply being a bully, accompanied by a gang, and that my main goal is to discredit. In fact, Charlotte135 still fails to see any valid reason for the topic ban; this is evident all over Charlotte135's talk page. Charlotte135 plays the "I am the victim" card. And in this case at the Domestic violence talk page, Charlotte135 accused me of an agenda for removing a WP:Undue weight piece from the lead. I am at the end of my rope with this editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I crossed out the Urolagnia article above, because even though that article was added to my watchlist because of my concern about this this IP who eventually became this editor, I have yet to edit that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll first of all point out that Charlotte135 has edited topics related to the female reproductive system at least as early as last November, while Flyer22 Reborn accumulates hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily. That there is some intersection is hardly surprising. The allegedly hounding edits do not seem to be in furtherance of any dispute on those pages, with Flyer22 or anyone else.

The conflict between Charlotte135 and Flyer22 apparently began in October at Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_5#Claim_about_male_self_overestimating with a content dispute that Flyer22 almost immediately personalized. I first encountered the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Domestic_Violence_article, where it became quickly apparent that there was a simple resolution to the content dispute. I noted at the time the solution could have been easily reached had Flyer22 simply stuck to commenting on content rather than contributors.

Rather than accepting this resolution, Flyer22 continued to policy/forum shop by trying to get support from MEDRS Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_21. Note especially how CFCF's opinion changes after Flyer22 tells him what to think. Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page itselfWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Disruptive_editing_on_Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_.28medicine.29_by_CFCF to make it agree with Flyer22. I don't know if Charlotte135's present accusations of canvassing can be supported, but Flyer22 and CFCF should definitely be regarded as a tag team wherever they appear.

While my attention was elsewhere, Flyer22 brought Charlotte135 to ANI based on the insinuations that Charlotte135 was an MRA and impersonating a woman.[[27]] These are not policy-based reasons, and making these allegations was a conduct violation in itself. Astoundingly, Mark Arsten placed a 3 month topic ban on Charlotte135 rather than boomeranging as would have been appropriate.

Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas. This gives the impression of attempting to intimidate editors and exert WP:OWNership of articles. This has in the past been directed towards myself, and is certainly still on display with regard to Charlotte135.[28][29][30][31] It can even be seen in Flyer22's presumptuous refusal to "agree to" a 2-way interaction ban.

The above notwithstanding, Charlotte135 needs to drop the stick with respect to the question of symmetry or non-symmetry of genders in domestic violence. Regardless of the merits, its a point the community would like to move on from. I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, you were on the opposite side of CFCF and myself in these disputes, as should be clear to anyone who does their research on the matter. You mischaracterized things then, and you have done it again now. Case in point: Editing "hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily" via WP:STiki and Charlotte135 having some overlap with me in that way is one thing. Charlotte135 specifically targeting articles that I heavily edit (in a way that mirrors a tab on my contribution history), and obscure or barely-active articles that I edit, is another thing. Two, there was no WP:Forum shop violation. Three, CFCF and I are not as closely aligned as you make us out to be; I didn't even fully agree with CFCF and his proposals (again...doing one's research is a virtue). Four, there were no simple solutions at the Domestic violence article talk page when it came to Charlotte135's involvement; anyone is free to see what happened at that talk page during that time; they are free to see that Charlotte135 repeatedly failed to accept the literature with WP:Due weight, would ramble on about editor bias, editors being so and so, and that multiple editors were frustrated with Charlotte135 because of all of this. They will see exactly what led to Charlotte135's topic ban from the article. Another editor (Ongepotchket) is just the latest person to note that Charlotte135 is disruptive there. So you coming here and defending Charlotte135 and acting like the proposal and consensus for the topic ban on Charlotte135 were baseless and uncalled for makes not a bit of sense. If you are going to come to WP:ANI and defend a highly disruptive editor, then at least make a better case than that. As for your claim that "Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas.", it has gone on my top ten list of false claims made on Wikipedia. I do not make imperious demands, unless it's telling someone to stay off my talk page or to stop making false and inaccurate claims about me, as Charlotte135 repeatedly does, or to stop editing disruptively. And I have usually only noted that my preferred changes are inevitable when interacting with Charlotte135, since my preferred changes are policy or guideline-based and Charlotte135's preferred changes usually are not, and since Charlotte135 will waste editors' time with talk of supposed bias and repeatedly make false commentary and accusations of POV-pushing for following the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Furthermore, as many know, I have a very low tolerance for disruptive editors; I do not treat disruptive editors the same way that I treat productive editors (the top my user page and talk page are clear about that), and I never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Rhoark's claim that "Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page to make it agree with Flyer22," I advise editors to read that WP:ANI thread, which didn't end in any kind of sanction against CFCF or consensus that CFCF was in the wrong. CFCF was restoring the guideline to what it was before it was changed without consensus. And as a number of medical editors agreed, the guideline supported my arguments anyway. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go again Flyer22reborn. Aggressively belittling and demeaning other editors that simply disagree with you. What utter nonsense, following you. To the contrary, you have been following me. If I was interested in following you, why did I suggest this? [32]. As a number of editors have noted, you seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles as did the blocked editor shootingstar88 whom you befriended and was indefinitely blocked for extreme copyright violations and opening the project up to potential litigation by the authors of this original material they copied and pasted. IMHO you are far too personally involved in this emotional topic of domestic violence for some reason. I think it would be best for the project if you, and I, accepted Rhoark's neutral advice, and we both walked from this topic not just one of us, but both of us. I just don't care, to be honest with you, but I do believe your personal opinions on the topic and aggressive ownership of the article are preventing other fair minded editors from making neutral edits based on what the reliable sources actually say. That may then allow other editors to make changes if necessary without you and I bickering over nothing. It looks like at least 2 other editors on the talk page also disagree with you, not just me, and countless others you have scared away. Here's editor OpenFuture commenting [33] So, what do you say? You and I can then edit other topics and stay away from each other. Sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: And yet the inaccurate statements from Charlotte135 continue above. For example, there have been no number of editors who "have noted [I] seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles"; instead, what a number of editors have noted is that I help keep out severe WP:Neutral violations (especially as they relate to that policy's WP:Due weight section), and correct editors who misunderstand that policy. My contribution history is also nothing like Shootingstar88's.

Charlotte135, you are problematic when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics...period. Various editors have been clear about that. When various editors, ones not tied to men's rights activism, state the same thing about me when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics, then I will consider walking away from them. Right now, I am helping to keep the type of mess you want to add to these articles out of it. My supposed POV adheres to the literature with WP:Due weight. Your POV does not. The only true support you've had thus far is from those who are sympathetic to men's rights views or those who hold men's rights view. From here on out in this thread, I will not respond to you any further, since you cannot help but present matters inaccurately and tell falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep following me, despite your asinine denials, I will present a thorough case against you with diff-links making it explicitly clear that none of these articles you are suddenly showing up at are coincidental matters. And along with that thorough case, there will indeed be a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say7 Flyer22, it is clearly you who has been following every edit I make. And just as Rhoark and so many other editors you attack, demean, threaten and belittle, I could, and should provide a detailed list of diffs whereby you have obviously followed me. You are far from neutral on these gender topics. Everyone knows this. Further you aggressively attack other editors and exhibit ownership behavior on these articles. I just decided to stand up to you, that's all. Why not just walk away now if you are so neutral and let other editors clean up yours and shootingstar88's mess? If you do, I will. I just don't care, to be honest. But remember, I actually suggested an interaction ban, two way, well before you posted here. As you carefully cherrypick your diffs to include and not include, just like your sources and editing language, that was something you did not include above. Many editors have pointed this out to you, but you don't listen and your disruptive behavior is scary to be honest. But Rhoark and so many other editors has already pointed this out.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, your own contribution history on these gender based articles, most of which I have not edited, is almost identical to blocked user Shootingstar88's. Absolutely, no doubt about it. If any editor wants to see an actual SPA and real POV pushing anyone should scrutinize carefully Shootingstar88's entire edit history, and you Flyer22reborn, helping them create it, and then your desperate attempts at trying to get them unblocked for their severe copyright violations that open the project up to potential litigation. Something you fail to understand. And as administrator Diannaa told you, it would take several months, and three hours a day to clean up, and you assured everyone you would do it, and actively prevented other editors from going near Shootingstar88's copyright violation mess, which still remains in these gender related articles. Yes, I do find that particularly disruptive and damaging to the project Flyer22. Litigation from authors of original work that editors copy and paste into articles, is a real and definite threat to the project Flyer22reborn. It's their original work. They own the rights. You don't seem to understand or care.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone not involved in these broils, I think I might point out a trope or habit which consistently worsens things -- in my opinion, probably intentionally and unquestionably disruptively. Charlotte135 often replies to her adversary’s edits with direct address, and then repeats the name -- usually again with direct address -- later in the rebuttal, often as part of a rhetorical question. The effect is often to infuriate her interlocutor, first because it personalizes a content dispute, and second because English has a specific term for a rhetorical question posed in direct address. This is a taunt. The quality of breathless schoolyard taunting is accentuated because Charlotte135 often omits the comma required before the appositive direct address. We see all this in the paragraph above. We see it here [34]. It seems clear that either this editor wants to exacerbate tension or that their English (or perhaps their manners) are not up to the task of managing tension in these areas. There are lots of areas on Wikipedia that deserve attention -- biographies of women in the sciences, botanical articles on Australian plants.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone peripherally involved, and therefore targeted by Charlotte135, I have to agree with Flyer22reborn and MarkBerstein that Charlotte135 engages in WP:BAITing, and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing followed by personal attacks against Flyer; Charlotte135 was topic-banned for their behavior and we are less than a week back and once again Charlotte135 is doing exactly the same thing -- inserting nonsense edits with a "men's rights" tone, claiming innocence and neutrality, then baiting opponents until they are ready to rip their hair out. This needs to be stomped on, now. I suggest at last a 60-day topic ban on Charlotte135 and if this editor fails to learn their lesson, then indef bans are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

pinging Diannaa, since her name was invoked above. I'm sure her input would be clarifying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana said it very well and I am in complete agreement with her. In fact that includes the "tear your hair out" comment as I've often thought the same thing myself. Editors should not be tested to the end of their patience, as Charlotte is always so good at. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Charlotte's edits and I agree with the original posting and what others have said here. Charlotte is violating the spirit and letter of WP:HARASS, and is following Flyer around picking fights. Sanctionable and unwise, and something that Flyer seems to attract for some reason. I am with Monatabw and will make a proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll take a step past what Montanabw proposes and simply propose a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS with standard appeal available after one year. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Rhoark's neutral, objective and detailed comments above, talking about Flyer22reborn's disruptive and aggressive behavior, all we have is literally the same set of friends of Flyer22, Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog falsely accusing me of following their friend Flyer22?? With no evidence. And even though, and well before Flyer22 posted here, I was the one who suggested a 2 way interaction ban, to stop Flyer22 and her friends following, harassing and bullying me.

Obviously administrator Diannaa would be the only one to look at this please, and adjudicate and dare I say, have the courage as an administrator, to actually place sanctions on Flyer22reborn as well. I would respect their decision. However otherwise this is just like a gang at school bullying an individual for standing up to them, like Rhoark and others have tried to do, but got beaten down by Flyer22reborn's unrelenting aggression and fear tactics on Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that while Flyer22reborn and I are vacant from the domestic violence article, other editors are actually able to edit the article in the spirit of things. I hope this continues. However I fear that if Flyer22reborn were to be allowed to continue their editing at that article, they will again scare off other good faith editors trying to add content that is actually based on what the reliable sources say. Looking at the edit history on these articles Flyer22 seems to have engaged in many conflicts with many different opposing editors. And many editors have noted Flyer22reborn's lack of neutrality and POV pushing. Can I ask Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [35]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that John from Idegon has pinged Diannaa, and said "her input would be clarifying." I think this is appropriate as I don't see how friend's of Flyer22reborn, (administrators or editors) could possibly make any neutral and fair decisions on this matter.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A question to administrators please? Is contacting other editors/friends off or on Wikipedia a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? I have been reading the policy for a few days and I'd appreciate clarification. I must hastily add, so not again falsely accused of following Flyer22reborn, because once again they are over there at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, fighting it out with another editor. Flyer22reborn is once again over there now, demeaning, belittling and mocking another editor. My question though stands as when I brought it up before with Flyer22 and her friends, they called it ridiculous, and demeaned my understanding of the policy. Just like they Flyer22reborn seems to be doing again at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. I'd appreciate a neutral administrator to explain canvassing to me, especially here at ANI?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To all that, i will just say, wow. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wow. However Jytdog, you are very often called upon or pinged, to partake and support Flyer22reborn's point of view. It happended in a few conversations I've had in the past with Flyer22. And I'm sure if I did go through your edit history, which I certainly can't be bothered doing, there would be other instances over the years. Once again, boom, here you all are, right on cue. Is pinging in this way, for support, esp here at ANI a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? Probably best you don't answer. Same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. When good faith editors like me and others wonder if this is allowed or how much weight, editors opinions who are pinged, off, or on, Wikipedia, it is a valid question Jytdog, despite your sarcastic "Wow," in an attempt to discredit, demean and belittle, my serious question. I realize I don't have your experience here, so please excuse my ignorance.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the good work that Flyer is doing and I hate to think what some of our articles would look like if she had not stepped in. I support Jytdog's suggestion re a ban. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are grateful Gandydancer but I'm pretty sure the project will survive, and other good faith, neutral editors, were allowed to got on with the job based on what the reliable sources actually say, in these emotional topics, if Rhoark's sensible, fair and workable solution, of a 2-way interaction ban and topic ban for both me and your close friend Flyer22 was applied.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Can I ask administrator Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [36]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• A two-way interaction ban punishes the victim equally with the bully and is inappropriate; here it is crystal clear that Charlotte135 is the primary offender. I concur with Jytdog that perhaps admins could consider a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS. We have a pattern of hounding and vicious attacks on multiple people, gaming the system and manipulating what has actually been said and done across multiple articles. This editor needs a different sandbox in which to play. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Save the further abuse and scary talk Montanabw. It is very clear on my talk page User talk:Charlotte135 under the Questions & Answers header that this was going to happen again, and me be ganged up on. Please don't be so rude and dismissive of Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [37].

And why would I have suggested an interaction ban myself before Flyer22reborn posted here, if I was the bully. It is very clear the same old gang members or Wikipedia:Tag team are at it again. I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa prior to being set up, baited and then dragged over here. This discussion on my talk page is here [38] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [39]. My only mistake was to take the old tag team's bait and then be dragged back in so Flyer22reborn could post it here and the rest of the tag team come in on cue, and comment. Flyer22reborn's aggressive ownership of these articles needs to be stopped and Rhoark's solution of a "2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." But as I said, both is the only fair solution and Diannaa is the best person to adjudicate, not you Montanabw. Charlotte135 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While some admins adjudicate disputes, I am not one of them. Dispute resolution is not something I am good at. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with interaction bans is that they can sometimes increase tension between editors. Some editors become vigilant about enforcing an interaction ban and viewing crossing paths with the other editor as harassment and then we are back at ANI, often on a regular basis as an editor seeks sanctions for violations of an I-ban. Admins want to defuse conflict, not take measures that increase it.

It would be best if you two would voluntarily keep out of each other's way. These reappearances at ANI are not good for you, Charlotte135 or for Flyer22reborn. I would think since you are adults you could find a way to resolve this dispute without having to have admins imposing topic bans or blocks. You can see, by the fact that no admins have jumped into the discussion that there isn't a strong desire to impose sanctions on either of you. But that can change if you can't drop the stick and walk away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz while i hear that, the evidence here is very clear that Charlotte135 is pursuing Flyer in a very harass-y way. Flyer gets these men's rights activists who stick to her and do hound her, and "Charlotte135" is the most recent edition. This behavior is not OK. It is part of what makes WP a nightmare for some people. I really believe that a TBAN under the Gamergate DS is the way to diffuse tension here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So it's a new day. But still, the men's rights stuff is re-hashed, once again. Whoever you are directing that at this time Jytdog (and it seems at me I really, really, really think you and others should drop it. It is sounding pretty childish I have to say and I'm sure there are many editors here who would agree. This is something Diannaa and I have discussed and Diannaa gave me excellent advice, which I should have applied. That is, don't take the bait, and react to such attacks. I am a feminist Jytdog, for the record, and do actually identify as a feminist, but really who cares? Does that matter here? What I see by this mens rights nonsense that you, Gandydancer, Montabw, Flyer22reborn and a few others throw at other editors is bias and uncivil behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. I also wonder why it has been allowed to continue. It's offensive and disruptive to the project and goes against policy. Unfortunately it seems to have been a pattern over many years on Wikipedia talk pages I have noticed, and I actually think it needs to be stamped out permanently. I'm sure that other editors are adult enough to handle any biased editing, from any editor. However accusing people of being mens rights activists, in a desperate attempt to discredit them, should end right now. Please. Liz, I am an adult, so I can drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great Charlott135, if you steered away from the topics where Flyer edits. You are the one who steered into them. It is clear as day. You can absolutely make all this go away by just indeed walking away and stop pursuing her. If you agree to do that, this thread could close right now. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my genuine request to please drop the men's rights stuff Jytdog. At least with me. I really have had enough of it and consider it entirely unjustified, and a personal attack. I really would like you and others to stop that, if that's okay with you and your friends. And I have not "pursued" Flyer22reborn, contrary to what you say. However I have engaged in long winded mutual discussions and conflicts with Flyer22, which I am willing to walk away from. I will also try and avoid Flyer22reborn, wherever I can from here on. For my sanity, if nothing else. By you saying I have pursued or harassed her, does not make it true. And I think Liz was actually directing her advice to stop our bickering and conflict on the few occasions we do come into contact, not the false allegations, with no evidence, you are posting here to discredit me. And for the record my recent single edit to the domestic violence article, two or three other independent editors agreed with. Flyer22reborn deleted that sentence right before my topic ban expired, because we had discussed it at length in the past, and she knew it would provoke a reaction I'm sure (bait). I wasn't going to comment (take the bait), but I did, stupidly, and doing so fell right into her trap, and we all ended up here. Even that, I've let go of.

The problem here is that Flyer22reborn seems to have edited, to some degree, every single possible sexual topic on Wikipedia. And I really mean that, without exaggeration. It's quite incredible. That's okay, but are you, or anyone else actually saying I cannot edit any of those hundreds of articles? I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [40]. Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments seen here [41] at least provided some evidence as to Flyer22reborn's behavior, whereas no evidence has been provided to back up your accusations. My point again is yes Liz, I can definitely drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can, and have already taken the lead. I won't accept this one sided blame you and your friends are trying to stitch me up with again Jytdog, that's all. There is another solution here too. Let's all be adults here and work with me and be civil toward me if we cross paths. And I will pay you the same respect. I promise. However if you can't, or won't do that, I do insist that you, Flyer22reborn, Gandydancer, Montabw and a few others drop the mens rights BS, at least towards me. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to walk away, then agree to walk away. Don't turn back and try to "get" Flyer. If you will not agree to walk away from the GamerGate field then the community should TBAN you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, were you talking to Flyer22reborn too please? Jytdog, I've admitted getting into stupid 2-way bickering and conflicts with Flyer22reborn, which are not helpful and are disruptive, but I won't accept your false accusations of harassing or following her and definitely not accept you trying to now embroil me in any way in the gamgergate controversy and biased editing. Editor Rhoark and so many other good faith editors have also been offended and unduly scared away from articles by Flyer22reborn's aggressive and uncivil editing and men's rights labeling, and it needs to stop, or at least be tempered, rather than Flyer22reborn and the rest of the Wikipedia:Tag team, believe they are above any sanctions here on Wikipedia and continue to roam free. If I'm ganged up on again, rather than reading my comments above and how I have already taken Liz's two-way advice to "keep out of each others way" wherever possible, then so be it. However I'm hoping that neutral and fair administrators like Liz and Diannaa can again read my comments please, and look at my actual edits to articles, and make their own decision to close this thread rather than feel pressured by you Jytdog. IMO it also would have been appropriate and respectful to Liz, and the community, if Flyer22reborn had responded to Liz's fair suggestion to resolve this too. I'm pretty sure Liz and Rhoark were not just talking to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that a topic ban should be placed on Charlotte135.--MONGO 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Could you please provide one diff here as to why a topic ban?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MONGO Just so your opinion is neutral Mongo, and based on something, would you mind providing any actual evidence, reasoning and some diffs. Anything?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god please stop randomly bolding words. It doesn't make your argument any more impressive much like how using capslock doesn't make you more important. --Tarage (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god, I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is giving an excellent summary of what's been going on here and I suggest we take his advise on the solution. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. "advise" is spelt "advice". Administrator Liz, I have for my part, at least, taken your fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. What more can I do? The issue dragged here was my alleged interaction with Flyer22. Since my topic ban expired on the 15th, my editing has shown no bias, in any way, and no editor here has provided any evidence, not even a single diff to show otherwise. Please rule on this Liz. Surely there are other real cases to be dealing with. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know the difference - it was an error and not something worth mentioning, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It was just that I remember you making such a big deal of the fact and bragging to me that you're IQ was in the top 5% of the population on internet IQ tests. I did not think that was necessary to try and demean other editors by saying that, that's all. I mean, who cares what you think your IQ is. So when you made that spelling error I thought it was worth pointing out.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously nitpick someone's spelling on a non-article page? Stop. Now. You are burning every god damn bridge you possibly can and it needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is time for an admin to step in here; the parameters of this discussion are well-defined and Charlotte135 has taken the WP:ROPE. At a minimum, the topic ban needs to be reimposed. Charlotte135 IS taking the same tone of editing that got this editor their original topic ban, is stalking and harassing Flyer22reborn, and though Liz means well, a two-way ban is not going to work; Flyer DOES get targeted by men's rights activists and has any number of people who mean ill-will just waiting for an excuse to harass her further. This is Charlotte135's behavior we are looking at and Charlotte135's alone. The responses and personal attacks by this user toward just about every other user who weighed in here with any kind of critical commentary pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I've had encounters with both parties in the past, so I may be considered marginally involved. That said, I'm having a difficult time figuring out the root issue here.

Charlotte135 has a clear beef with Flyer22. Their interactions started back on 20 October 2015 on domestic violence where the two begin to edit war a bit. Flyer22's behavior and interactions with Charlotte haven't been ideal, especially for a veteran editor. However, Flyer22 has been the subject of repeated harassment in the past and often gets the brunt of antifeminist, homophobic, and transphobic editors' personal attacks and sockpuppeting users (note: not calling Charlotte these things)... which makes me under understanding of short tempers and incivility from Flyer22. Flyer22 has a record of grumpiness, but a strong record of constructive editing as well. We certainly has our resident grumps and incivil editors and after months of strong concern about CIVIL and enforcement-related bashing of my head against a wall, I've come to the conclusion that so long as they aren't making direct personal attacks, harassing, or using slurs, leave them be. Or maybe trout them a few times. Flyer22, turn down the grump, disengage (which she seems to have done already after the ANI filing), and avoid being so BITEy. If an editor starts making questionable or POV edits, let other editors address the behavior if your initial attempts to address it fail. There's little harm in having POV or UNDUE editors on an article for a bit; they'll be addressed soon enough. I acknowledge that I'm generally sympathetic to Flyer22's experiences on Wikipedia and that my interpretation of events is informed by that).

However I'm unclear as to why Charlotte resorts rather quickly to name calling and bludgeoning. From what I can tell, it stems more from a strong POV than past issues. From the get-go on domestic violence, Charlotte shows a strong POV and battleground mentality. This is not unusual for a motivated new editor though. The thing is, that hasn't seemed to change at all. It may have gotten worse. And it continued after a 3 month topic ban. I am wondering if Charlotte is able to be a constructive editor in this area at all. She seems able to edit other areas well enough, so to me a tban would be a reasonable course of action. I do think the evidence Flyer22 provided supports the accusations of hounding/harassment/following. But I've seen so many ibans fail, and frankly this is about more than just two editors who can't get along. The BLUDGEONING and combative tone on this ANI alone demonstrates some level of inability to see her own problematic behavior.

Based on Jytdog's and Montanabw's and Liz's comments, as well as Charlotte's BLUDEGONing, abuse of deceased horses, and lack of recognition of own problematic behaviors, I think a tban would be best. Had I commented a couple days ago, I might have gone for a formal warning, but the comments on this ANI shift me more towards a tban. Jytdog suggested the Gamergate DS, but I don't think Charlotte was alerted to those discretionary sanctions before. However, Bbb23 did notify her of the Men's Rights Movement general sanctions ([42]) which includes the possibility of "other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". A tban on gender, sex, sexuality related articles (or articles related to controversies thereof) would seem to cover most of the area of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis, EvergreenFir. That makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I thank EvergreenFir as well. Sounds good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Could EvergreenFir or any editor please point out just one single diff where, since the 15th my editing would possibly justify a topic ban. I have kept asking this, but no-one, not Mongo, no-one, has been able to show even one single diff or any actual evidence whatsoever. This was dragged here by Flyer22 reborn for our two-way interactions and conflicts. Suddenly a topic ban has been imposed, but with no diffs and no evidence presented from the 15th onward. I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [43]. Also this discussion with Diannaa on my talk page is here [44] and my reply is here [45]. When I dared to made one single edit to the domestic violence article, that two other independent editors agreed with, sure enough, I was jumped on, and here we are. And the only people who have weighed in on this discussion here too are the same group of editors and friends I discuss on my talk page. Editors who I am sure, in other respects, are all good editors. But that point is also discussed in the Wikipedia:Tag team essay too. All very strange.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on domestic violence mere days after your tban edited, a continuation of your initial beef from October which results in your tban, and the ensuing argument on the article's talk page. Which then continued the following day with other users ([46], including a personal attack on Flyer22 (see edit summary) despite the fact that you were the one to initially delete comments ([47]) which Flyer22 reverted ([48])... likely an edit conflict, but you seized on it as evidence of malice. The argument continued two days later ([49]). While all of this is happening, you're following Flyer22 to brand new pages (shown in diffs in initial complaint). You literally only stop once this ANI is filed. Like I said, I think Flyer22 and you have a major beef, but I don't think that's the locus of the problem. You edited just fine on psychology-related articles during your tban... you dabbled in feminism articles even (where I first encountered you). But that you immediately returned to your dispute on domestic violence immediately after your tban and followed Flyer22 around suggests your behavior is the problem and the certain areas foster problematic behaviors from you. Flyer22 might be a catalyst, but isn't the cause. She isn't following you, she's just reacting (admittedly in a hostile way) to you when you show up. It doesn't seem fair to punish Flyer22 for your problematic behaviors (which is what an iban would do). And frankly one-way ibans don't seem to work. So tban is my conclusion; remove you from the areas that foster your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I'm not going to bother compiling a detailing diff history of exactly how Flyer22reborn baited me by removing certain edits, right before the 15th, and all the times they monitored my talk pages and the masses of personal attacks and uncivil behavior toward me. What's the point, nothing would happen to them anyway, and everyone knows that. I also can't be bothered, as I said to Diannaa. However foolishly, after the 15th, I took Flyer's bait. I also felt like testing my liberty on the project to be honest. Just like any other editor, and apply Mark Arsten's response to what I can do and cant edit after Flyer22 kept commenting on different talk pages trying to restrict me unfairly and for no reason at all, from editing certain articles [50] and Diannaa's advice [51]. But then I even apologized for my own childish reaction and suggested an interaction ban with Flyer22reborn - before they posted here. In fact I have asked Flyer22reborn to work with me many times but they refused and instead wanted to continue the conflict. I'm not the only one Flyer22reborn has conflicts with either. Over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing Flyer22reborn has been upsetting more folks. It's becoming almost daily. Wherever you go, Flyer22reborn is upsetting, beliitling, demeaning and taunting other good faith, and in many cases very experienced editors too, apart from her large group of friends, both editors and administrators. These good faith independent editors are then labelled disruptive, or men's rights, or just plain daft, and ignorant for not agreeing with Flyer22 and not understanding policy as well as Flyer22reborn does. My concern is that Flyer22 knows damn well they can get away with it here on Wikipedia nowadays, for some reason. It doesn't seem to matter how rude, how disruptive they are, and how many edits are blatant POV pushing, it's tolerated again and again, much to the amazement of many editors here. And it seems to be getting worse. They can basically do whatever they like and get away with it. I thought Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above summarized all of these points very well, but was again quickly smashed by Flyer22reborn. [52].

EvergreenFir As far as my topic ban, I can happily walk from the ridiculously biased domestic violence topic and articles that Flyer22reborn and shootingstar88 and some others have filled with cherry picked sources and POV, but why the gender and sexual topics EvergreenFir? Especially since I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. If I see Flyer22reborn I will not interact. Simple. Can you provide some reasons for those other topics please? And for goodness sake, please not the men's rights stuff again. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it because Flyer22reborn has edited to some degree literally every, single possible sexual article that exists, and therefore a broad brush has been applied? As an adult, and an editor who is here to help with the project, I can assure you again, that I will follow Liz's fair advice. Would you possibly consider just a topic ban on the domestic violence articles instead? I don't understand otherwise, especially given Flyer22reborn's has had absolutely no sanctions applied to them over all of this.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it looks like you are trying to quickly close this off now, but administrators Liz and EvergreenFir have proposed very different solutions and so did editor Rhoark. And both administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten, have been involved indirectly here too, through the advice they both provided to me prior to the 15th. Would you mind please just letting EvergreenFir read these new comments, and my fair proposal, and then they can close it off as an administrator and hopefully consider my good faith proposal and points I've made. Like you, I am here to improve the project despite your bad faith accusations. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was fix indenting. Stop digging. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to apologize to you, after seeing it was another case you were referring to not this one, but you beat me to it. Sorry.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been hacking up the DV article like a Dexter montage, and surprisingly, there has been no resultant shit storm. The issue seems to have boiled down to

• Flyer and Charlotte had bad blood to begin with, and pretty quickly devolved into assumptions of bad faith.
• Lot's of accusations mostly centered around Charlotte's prev block, and somewhat less so about her current behavior
• A recent discussion that is mostly a stylistic difference of opinion
• A lot of unhelpful comments by a very new editor, Shy1alize

At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem. Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway. Flyer needs to practice how to have discussions with new editors without it translating in new-editor-speak to "fuck you and your wrong opinion." Shy1alize has a lot to learn period. And the RfC seems to have resolved the issue anyway. Charlotte served her time and nothing in this case in-and-of-itself seems like grounds for a ban, at least to me. The article moves on. There is no current disruption except for the ad nauseam discussion here. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are missing, is the whole point of the OP which is not about the DV article (and your metaphors for your work there are inapt at best) - it is about Charlotte following Flyer around. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's in the "bad blood" part. Flyer is ubiquitous in gender/sexuality related articles, as has been pointed out, I believe.

Perhaps most importantly, I haven't actually seen that much Dexter. The prevalence of serial killers just doesn't add up. My wife went through a Netflix phase. Also, the overuse of voice over...oy vey, don't get me started.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased and independent comments Timothyjosephwood. Your input here is appreciated. By the way, even though I’m not a Dexter fan either, I thought your metaphor was quite apt on the domestic violence article. Although I stayed well clear, thank you for your recent work on that article. It would be good to see further consensus-based editing over there, and in related articles, where a number of different editors, work together to form an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V).

The other largely unsubstantiated comments on this thread, are from a few close friends of Flyer22, mainly Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog. It should also be noted that I have had interpersonal conflict with Gandydancer and Montanbw in the past and they dislike me personally, with a vengeance, that’s for sure, and from also a motive of vengeance IMO but the fact is, they never, ever provide diffs, or any evidence at all to back up their drive-by comments and just suddenly appear, wherever I am being discussed by Flyer22reborn. On the other side of the ring, is Rhoark's comments [53] Timothyjosephwood’s comments above, administrator Diannaa's advice [54] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [55] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [56] and of course, my own defence, with diffs, which unfortunately appears a little lost in translation. Another neutral editor, Kingsindian, who carefully analyzed the situation when I was topic banned a few months ago, and added their thoughtful and detailed comments, can be seen here for some further perspective on this mutual bad blood between flyer22reborn, and I and also paints Flyer22 as being far from innocent in our interactions. [57]

Could I make a number of facts very clear here for the record. Firstly, I am not a men’s rights activist (no offence to anyone who actually is, by the way) but for the last time, I am not. And I don’t believe most of the many other editors who have had conflicts with Flyer22reborn are either. Secondly I am here to help, and be constructive, and my edits are not disruptive. Both Timothyjosephwood’s and Kingsindian’s comments directly support this fact, particularly after the 15th March. Nor have I exhibited any POV since the 15th, anywhere, and no diffs or evidence have been presented here, showing otherwise contray. Thirdly I am not, I repeat, not following Flyer22reborn around. If anything, the opposite has occurred. Here are my comments, prior to Flyer22reborn dragging me to ANI, and me actually suggesting an interaction ban. [58]

For the record, I have also genuinely asked Flyer22 if they would like to work with me and bury the hatchet on no less than 8 occasions (maybe more). Each time Flyer22reborn has rudely told me to piss off, no way. So I’ve actually given up on trying to work with them now, to be honest, and will instead, like Liz fairly suggested, just ignore or avoid Flyer22 in the future, rather than taking her bait. One can only get rejected, demeaned and belittled so many times before one gives up on working with someone. Here is another example of me deciding to try and resolve further conflict and not take the bait, which is the complete opposite of harassing, Flyer22reborn. [59] And here’s an example of me just letting it go and walking away before, Flyer22reborn still decided to drag me over here. [60] I think the point that everyone realizes, even Jytdog, is that Flyer22reborn seems unable to ever accept they are wrong or just back down. A current ongoing example of this is at Talk:Child abuse, where Flyer22reborn is once again insisting they know best, and belittling Coconutporkpie’s knowledge of policy. Further evidence against accusations of harassment I chose to stay well out of that dispute also, although I definitely agree with Coconutporkpie. And by the way, I only noticed this long running dispute at that article, as I have made a number of edits to the child neglect article and thought at one stage the two articles could have been integrated. Anyway, we all need to back down sometimes in life. We all need to admit we are wrong too. That is if we are adults. I think this is why Liz and other editors here have also advised Flyer22 to be an adult and stop demeaning others if they happen to disagree.

I think the fact that administrator Liz was involved in another case where Flyer22reborn’s friend and protégé Shootingstar88, was reprimanded at ANI for attacking me, and then later Diannaa blocked twice for copyright violations, puts her in the best position to decide on this case, but anyway. And I had already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each other’s way" wherever possible. I have also now taken on board Timothyjosephwood’s advice that “everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem” and his direct advice to me that “Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway.” Having said all of that, could I possibly be given a warning instead, and some good faith assumed here, without an actual topic ban, and we then see how things go, instead of smashing me and imposing a sweeping topic ban for ….? and let Flyer22reborn to continue roaming scott free? Seems a tad unfair. If the same behavior did continue, could we then deal with it in a heavier handed manner EvergreenFir? Please at least consider this option instead, and as administrator Liz first suggested, and now another independent editor Timothyjosephwood has reiterated, after their own careful consideration and work at the domestic violence article. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

♫ Let it go. Let it gooooo. ♫ Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Great song, thanks Timothyjosephwood. So inspirational. My 5 year old daughter and I love that movie. I feel like an idiot everyone. And not for the above reasons, or because Flyer22reborn and her friends keep telling me I am, for not agreeing with them and standing up to them. No, it's because some lovely kind hearted IP just left an enlightening message on my talk page. It was simple, sincere and direct. It read EvergreenFir is not an admin You see, those five words: EvergreenFir is not an admin, changes everything for me. And they explained everything for me. Thanks so much EvergreenFir, for not telling me that fact, and casting such ridiculous aspirations, without any evidence in the way of diffs. I also wondered how EvergreenFir's solution was so very different to the real administrators fair minded decision. Now I know. Since I did my time as Timothyjosephwood put it, the evidence clearly shows I have not edited either disruptively, nor with any POV. The mountain of evidence also shows that no, I have not been harassing Flyer22, and in fact, the opposite may be true. But let's let it go. From here on, I'm going to follow administrator Diannaa's advice [61] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [62] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [63] So Liz, could we please just close this ridiculous thread, and in the words of the great Idina Menzel, just let it go the past is in the past, and we all get back to editing and building the project. Please Liz.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I don't think you understand that a good portion of the cases here just get ignored and auto archived if you stop being disruptive and....Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm envious. We're pregnant. My wife wants a boy. I kindof want a girl. I wanted to name her Rosa, but my wife thinks it's too ethnic (she white af). PM me with good girl names if you can. We're committed to a "II" if it's a boy. Family thing.

Also if you can be constructive, I could use some shovel and hammer over at DV. A lot needs to be done. If you can help me take one word out of every sentence for tightening, that would be great. Just don't sweat the small stuff, which is how this all happened.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid Gamergate and "Men's Rights" issues, but it's clear that there needs to be a TBAN and NPABAN on Charlotte135. I don't see evidence that Flyer22 is a problem, but there may be some complex issue that needs resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Always liked the name Rose, Timothyjosephwood. Maybe that could be a compromise, if she's a girl that is, and your wife likes the name. I'd be happy to help over there, and thank you for your good faith offer, but seriously given that Flyer22reborn is still actively involved, I think I will continue to follow administrator Liz's solution instead, and try and keep out of each others way wherever possible. I noticed that the second paragraph of domestic violence I mostly wrote is still standing though, after all the trimming, so at least I have been able to offer some constructive editing to that article.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC at Donald Trump

After a long Talk discussion regarding whether an edit at Donald Trump violates WP:original research, one of the involved editors initiated this RfC which IMO is outrageously non-neutral. I'm requesting that an admin take a look and decide whether that is indeed the case. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After numerous efforts to reach a compromise, there continued to be resistance to achieve consensus, even after language was proposed to provide the clarification that would answer the objections to the compromise. This language that is the subject of the dispute was reliably-sourced, was material to the article, and was crafted with compromise language made in good faith. After the nature of the objection to the compromise was revealed to be possibly politically-motivated, I asked for a RfC. That the RfC is being escalated here with an apparent intention for trigger negative repercussions for asking for a RfC shows that there could be a negative motivation here, possibly retaliatory. The record is clear about the discussion that took place on the Talk page, and the RfC was appropriate given the moving of the goalposts used to object to the good-faith compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC does seem to be in the appropriate format of "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). It's confusing to know what this RfC is asking for for those editors who have not participated in the previous discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC describes the initiator's own efforts as being in good faith and using reliable sources, while suggesting that the opposition is affected by political bias. That doesn't seem neutral to me. It also completely mis-represents the issue raised by the opposition.CFredkin (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For this RfC, I wasn't presuming to ask to be able to effect the compromise language before we received other opinions about the compromise language. The RfC was asking for other editors to comment about the compromise language. Because there were blocks to consensus, I was hoping that the input of other editors could help us reach a consensus. Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The RFC doesn't actually help give any information that an outside viewer would need to make an opinion. It doesn't matter if you have 100 diffs about the efforts you've made unless your goal is to make it a puzzle for others to figure out your actual point here. Otherwise, it's not so not neutral as almost borderline useless. Point to the actual discussions and let people see for themselves, not just your comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC is mal-formed. The opposition to the content is based on WP:original research, since the sources for the content under discussion don't actually mention Donald Trump (with the exception of a WSJ article that actually states that Trump was not actively involved). The source of the disagreement is not accurately described at all in the RfC.CFredkin (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what each side is based on. A simple "I'd like to add this edit and here is the previous discussion" is all that's needed. This level of complexity you guys on all sides are making this is absurd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To bring clarity, I will copy down the compromise language (links to which exist in the RfC), and move to amend the RfC to ask people to approve the compromise language. Thank you for this feedback, and my apologies. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the view that the RfC is mal-formed. I would propose closing the current RfC and starting over once agreement on the question is reached. Springee (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have copied the compromise language to preface the RfC, and editors are responding to the RfC on the talk page. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And then the wording is alleged change again in the middle of it. The RFC keeps changing what the actual wording is intended to be so all the "include" support is based on different versions of the exact language. Is the closer supposed to presume that an early include supports all later versions? Is the closer supposed to review and analyze all the time stamps to see if all the concerns have been resolved? It seems like a poorly designed RFC all around starting with a focus on defending the arguments above rather than actually giving people a neutral question (should this language be included or not). I suggest shelving it and starting over with the actual wording in separate headings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the filer. That RfC is not neutrally worded at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfCs don't have to be neutral worded? Whoever said so? Most people bringing about an RfC will bring on their viewpoint, it's upto the participants to decide whether that viewpoint is fine or not. The RfC does violate the principles, though, as drawing conclusion (even if based on facts) is construed as original research. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Um... right here? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, what I said was if you're introducing a change, you're always on one side of the argument, is it not? Hence, not neutral. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what you said. Having a viewpoint is not the same as neutral wording. No one asks for neutral views, just wording. And the question of the RfC should be neutrally worded, regardless of your personal position. When you !vote is what you make your case. The RfC wording in question is Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? That's not even close to neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I never spoke about the RfC itself except that it can be opposed on other grounds. I had said about the viewpoint in my first reply as well as second, I don't know what you missed. When you use RfC to resolve disputes, maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I messed up about the non-neutral wording and having a viewpoint but they're essentially synonymous, since you're trying to make a change from the status quo. Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? is not even a case of neutral or non-neutral, it's accusatory and shows only one side of the whole situation. If I were to write something like, "After being reverted multiple times and being in a heated discussion with Example, I'm here to seek opinions about the edits and whether there should be any change from status quo." In case you haven't noticed, I've been non-neutral by presenting my viewpoint but it's neutrally worded. I think that's where I messed up. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be neutrally worded. That's what I'm talking about WRT the this ANI complaint. I agree with Maslowsneeds' assessment of the RfC they're making a complaint about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor's personal behaviour in Basque sensitive articles

This Basque conflict and prisoners articles have shown lately the intervention of the editor Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) with a long history of irregular editing. I should urge a prompt, conclusive intervention, the editor has lately engaged in some kind of campaign regarding these sensitive articles with no attention to detail whatsoever, breach of civility, extremely charged, confrontational style, personal attacks, and eventually threats against myself, leading to an unacceptable risk of lack of freedom to edit. He was warned by another user both of his behaviour and editing stye, but the editor remains basically the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

another user and me have no issue, we are both editing articles together productively, despite an initial misunderstanding. These are not "Basque sensitive articles". They are two ghost articles which have been surreptitiously written by ETA apologists, particularly the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, which is clearly not under the supervision of more than two wikipedia editors - Iñaki LL and the original editor who has deleted his account (or has been blocked, I don't know). The entire article is written in language which exalts, justifies and expresses sympathy towards Basque terrorists ETA. It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources. Its entire objective is to pass-off individuals in Spain condemned for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping etc.. for political prisoners of some sort. The opening paragraph is, in its entirely, a justification for ETA's existence and actions.

My "personal attack" against Iñaki LL was a indeed a bitter comment in Spanish (you are welcome to google translate it), following his systematic reverting of me removing a couple of the more outrageous statements in the article (the whole article is outrageous and offensive). He is offended by me stating he is an ETA apologist, when he has positioned himself as the defendor of this article in its current form. I stick to that claim and remind him that he is a citizen of Spain, a democratic country, where in our criminal code breaking law 10/1995 of 23 November is punishable with a prison sentence of one to two years: 'the exaltation or justification of terrorism by any means of public expression or diffusion.' You can find this in articles 571-578 of our criminal code. Wikipedia may not be censored but it is my duty as a citizen of Spain and the European Union to warn my fellow country men when they are breaking the law in a pretty vile way, particularly today when the continent is yet again hit by this scourge. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see there has been a heated discussion at Talk:Basque conflict#Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers but, Iñaki LL, I don't see that you presented any evidence/diffs of misconduct. I recommend that if you all have reached an impasse, that you move the discussion over to Dispute Resolution where a mediator can help you move to a resolution over content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, as I said to you on the Basque conflict page, I think you raise valid points, but I can tell you from many years' experience editing in that area that labelling people that disagree with you "serial terrorist apologists" is ill-advised, unlikely to persuade opponents or neutrals, and is a personal attack and sanctionable. Similarly, this edit where you say: "The (Spanish) state prosecutor can't act against Wikipedia, but they can act against individual editors if the offence is committed on Spanish territory. So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory" is really unhelpful, verging on a legal threat. Your input in that area is important, but you can make your points without attacking or issuing veiled threats against other editors. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Content disputes"? I beg you pardon??? It is a direct threat of prosecution against me, even other more serious. It is not over contents, it is over irregular behaviour, and serial violation of WP rules destined at intimidating. I thought his contribs were telling enough. The above editor threatens with legal action against me should I revert his edits, see edits here and here (this last one telling "I got/know you", in Spanish). More on legal threats "by the state prosecutor" against editors ("although it can not act against wikipedia") should I act in a way or another here "make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory". Check the intimidating tone, using terminology that has legal implications here.

I posted an edit in Basque conflict talk, making it clear: I am not willing to discuss in the present conditions of continuous verbal abuse and threats. It is a clear case of an editor bulldozing its way by intimidation, citing my life outside the WP. The above editor, whom at this point I cannot consider legitimate given this episode and previous history, has gone on with its veiled threatening style against those who do not think like him here. S/he has thereafter continued editing the article having his own way. I demand prompt unequivocal action against the above editor, and its indefinite block from WP. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the same unacceptable, abusive line here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is ill advised, but it is not a direct threat of prosecution. You both need to cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you really read the links above? Did you? Let me tell you it looks like not sorry. It is a threat on my out-of-the-WP life as pointed by himself, based on we do not know what really, since the Asilah1981's statements do not point to specific problems that may be addressed, but an overall feeling of aggravation. The goal seems rather to spread a feeling of being unsafe to dissuade editors from editing legitimately in freedom ("if you undo my edits"). There is an unacceptable inflammatory, emotional accusatory plea that makes any discussion impossible, the goal pursued as it seems (it is basically a 'my way or highway'), and thus create biased articles. Other than me and other WP editors, WP's reliability is the main victim. I should urge an immediate call to the free flow of legitimate ideas into the WP, and therefore a block to the above editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the links above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have cooled down, I suggest you do the same. I have already stated in the edit you mention that I am NOT going to report you to the police in ANY case, so I am NOT threatening you. I am, however pointing to the fact that, if you engage in an edit war with me over an article with content which in Spain is clearly illegal (as well as deeply immoral), you are likely to be liable for "apology of terrorism". This is a serious risk for you outside wikipedia. I don't think you have committed a crime as of yet but you were definitely going down that road - Best warn you in advance! The risk you face is somewhat diminished by the depressingly low numbers of Spanish citizens who speak or understand English fluently but it is a risk nonetheless, particularly since your edits remain recorded into the future. The creator of article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners was fully aware of this and this is why he has deleted his account. Your edits in general are largely apolitical and constructive. Why get into trouble over such an ugly thing. I'm sure you know of what Madrid town Councillor Guillermo Zapata is going through right now. In 2016, one cannot continue to believe that the internet is a separate universe without real life consequences. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you have cooled down. However, you still are very confrontational and non-constructive. I suggest you stop interpreting Spanish law and leave that to the legal system. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture Understood. But I remind you that the least offensive of the two articles: Basque Conflict has already been discussed in the Spanish parliament with an official request by Spanish party UPyD to the government to formally complain to Wikipedia (Simply because of its title/definition)http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2013/12/04/upyd-wikipedia-eta_n_4384982.html. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has picked up on the worst of the two articles that I went ballistic over. This is not a question of my interpretation. The law is clear and the Spanish police has an entire team specialized in internet hate crimes and terrorism apology - a correct application of Wikipedia rules would bring such articles and their editors within the realm of legality as well as leading to another quality article which does not tarnish the reputation of wikipedia. Its a win-win situation. Up to you guys...Asilah1981 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's up to the Spanish legal system. What you are doing NOW is getting very close to making legal threats against Wikipedia, which is an automatic ban. Don't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Spanish state security laws and procedures overall are extremely controversial both in the Spanish and Basque political life. Secondly, I should demand Asilah1981 to retract now from unacceptable verbal abuse and personal attack against me, like here (literally if someone does not understand Spanish: "(...) you are coming here and lying in English, standing up for your coward shoot-in-the-head friends" in order to start re-establishing some kind of normality. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While the article should be written from as neutral a point of view as possible, the Spanish legal authorities have no jurisdiction over this American website, and what they think about the English-language Wikipedia is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know really why this is being belated, it is a matter of concern as a contributor to the WP and as part of its community that the serial violation of WP rules including serious personal attacks could go without consequences. I feel revolted specially as a wipikipedian by the two paragraphs starting and finishing "Valenciano You may be right (...) which kind of sucks." meant at paralyzing editors (by fear of editing something for which Asilah1981 may feel aggravated), dissuade from contributing unless they edit in one specific direction that s/he may find suitable enough by his/her own standards, citing a law (and the police) that looms over the editors like a sword of Damocles.

In fact, we do not know what the specific problem is (sentence, word...), it is the general intimidating atmosphere that remains. Check just this acusatory statement by the editor in question for the article "Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners" (as labelled by ex-Spanish premier Aznar): "It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources", check it for yourself, nothing more to add. And the (wo)man continues with the self-talk... Iñaki LL (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL actually, I would say the correct translation is "your friends of the bullet in the back of the head". Since the "soldiers" of the "basque national liberation movement" in the "basque conflict" seemed to consistently be unable to kill any of their victims unless it was from behind, particularly the nearly half of their victims who were basque civilians. Important clarification! OpenFuture I am nowhere near making legal threats against wikipedia because Spanish law does not apply to an American website nor does it even apply to editors who edit from outside Spain, such as yourself, for example. You could edit wikipedia saying ETA and ISIS are the best thing ever and that all Jews should be gassed and you would not be breaking Spanish law - unless you wrote that while being physically in Spain. Then you would be in hot water... I have mentioned this a couple of times already. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should just drop it now that you have indeed mentioned this a couple of times already. And maybe you should read WP:NPA while you are at it, calling an editor a serial terrorist apologist could be considered a personal attack, I certainly think it is.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

173.216.248.174 Drop what? Have I started this discussion? Someone is requesting me being blocked indefinitely from wikipedia. Apology of terrorism is not an insult or a slander. It is a rather common phenomenon in Spain, which is why it has had to be criminalized (it is offensive to the victims of those murdered). As an example, only two days ago, a basque local chapter of a major national party Podemos refused to condemn the recent ISIS attacks in Brussels because they felt that being requested to condemn a terrorist attack is an oppressive restriction of their freedom of speech. Such is the country in which we live, sadly....Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You personally attacked an editor by calling them a serial terrorist apologist, and have yet to apologize for the personal attack. Then, you continue to insult them and poke at them by calling them a wimp and state they have nothing to "fear" (in scare quotes). And up above you accused them of "breaking the law in a pretty vile way" and also informed them that if they revert any of your edits, they could be held criminally liable for their editing here on Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is if you have a problem with the content of the article, then discuss ways to improve the content, and stop discussing the editor, or you risk being blocked.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem about not complying with WP:OPENPARA guideline

I am asking the intervention of an admin at the page Joseph-Louis Lagrange, since User:Sapphorain, against the WP:OPENPARA guideline, is inserting a double nationality in the lead of the article. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear about that:

"if (the person is) notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

In this specific case, Lagrange became notable when he was still in Turin, reached the apogee of his fame in Berlin, then went to Paris, where among others he became French citizen. Notability was reached in Italy, so only the Italian nationality should be mentioned in the opening paragraph (not elsewhere, of course).

One thing should be clear: the rule established at WP:OPENPARA is crucial to avoid edit wars (well, most of edit wars ;-)), and does not allow the mentioning of double nationality in the lead. A famous case was the article about Enrico Fermi, object of edit wars for years among Italian and American Nationalistic POV pushers, until a user invoked the rule. After that, the lead of Enrico Fermi reached its stability. Of course this rule does not go always to the advantage of Italians: in other cases (i.e. at Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Rogers, Andrew Viterbi) I had to remove (several times) the Italian nationality from the lead. The rule is not perfect, but if someone is not happy about it, he/she should open a thread on the related manual of style discussion page, instead of edit warring.

About Lagrange, the correct version (with the Italian nationality) until before yesterday had a remarkable stability, showing that in this case there is consensus (that is, the rule was well understood). The double nationality was introduced before yesterday by another user ([64]) and after my revert with edit summary invoking WP:OPENPARA, by Sapphorain ([65]) I reverted again to the stable version inviting User:Sapphorain on his talk page to open a thread on the discussion page of the manual of style ([66]), and offering my support in case he had proposed the introduction of the possibility of a double nationality in the lead. As answer, he reverted again, accusing me of dishonesty ([67]). After that, I think that the intervention of an admin is necessary,at least to explain to the aforementioned user how this guideline works. Alex2006 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) Sounds like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the subject is the refusal of complying with a guideline. None disputes that Lagrange some years before dying got the French nationality, but WP:OPENPARA compels to put only one nationality in the lead. WP:OPENPARA is a guideline, this means that it should be enforced, if necessary. Alex2006 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines never compel anything. If you read the guideline you'll see this is the case. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what does this mean?

"Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." This is exactly what is happening in this case: after having failed with the persuasion, explaining what the guideline says, now I am asking for an admin intervention. Alex2006 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation of WP:OPENPARA is incomplete. It reads: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." The interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange, and the best solution is to mention both nationalities in the lead. Alex2006 would be right if Lagrange were notable "mainly for past events" (past events that took place in Italy before he moved). But it is not the case. Although he became notable in Italy, he is not notable mainly, but also, because of what he did in Italy. Sapphorain (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "mainly for past events" has nothing to do with the fact that he moved or not abroad. The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period, and the case of Lagrange is not "very difficult" (why difficult?), but crystal clear: Lagrange became notable already in Italy (the King of Prussia named him in his invitation letter "the foremost mathematician in europe"), and his notability increased above all when he was in Berlin, and in that period he remained an Italian working in Berlin. In other words, the question is: if Lagrange would have died during his trip from Turin to Berlin, should still deserve his article on an Encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then he shall be defined as Italian. Moreover, the guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two (otherwise I would have no problem in describing him in the lead as Italo-French) and this should be the Italian. BTW, I arose the issue of the double nationality already a couple of times in the manual of style discussion page, but I have been plainly ignored by the many contributors, the main reason being possibly that people who brings this issue are usually nationalistic POV-pushers: Italians who want to define Richard Rogers as Italo-British, Americans who would like to describe Enrico Fermi as Italian-American, and so on. This means that there is a strong consensus regarding this guideline. As I wrote above, if Sapphorain does not agree with this guideline, he can open a thread on the discussion page of the Manual of Style, and I can help him, but he should refrain from edit warring and keep the last stable version in place until the general discussion about this guideline has not been settled. Alex2006 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"[...] until the general discussion [...] has not been settled." ← Say wha`??? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I must correct two assertions by Alex2006.

(1) "The guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two" is simply not true: nothing of the kind is mentioned in WP:OPENPARA.

(2) "The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period" is Alex2006's own private opinion, and is not contained in WP:OPENPARA.

… Oh, and by the way: I am not French (nor Italian, nor nationalistic POV-pusher, whatever that might possibly mean ). Sapphorain (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex2006: As was explained to you above, guidelines are not mandatory; they are as their name implies, guides to article style. Actual content of any given article are decided by consensus at the individual article. It is never a good idea to ascribe a motive to another's edits unless you are prepared to cite numerous diffs showing a pattern such as you are ascribing. This is unambiguously a content dispute. Content disputes get settled on article talk pages with the assistance of WP:DR if needed. This board is for editor behavior that is in violation of policy. There is nothing like that here. The only thing close is the near WP:NPA violation you have made by questioning Sapphorain's motives without evidence. Drop this, go back to the talk page and calmly work this out please. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if guidelines are not mandatory, although strangely there is a paragraph about guideline enforcement, there is absolutely nothing to discuss on the article's talk page or here. The (lengthy) discussion about the insertion in the lead of the double nationality in the case of Enrico Fermi, to be found here, especially the last edits by Yworo who ended the discussion:

"For the purposes of the lead sentence, we use the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable...Basically, most people will be described using their birth nationality, if they became notable before changing or adding a citizenship."

Means absolutely nothing. Each one can edit or revert as he/she wishes, and for each person we have to start again a three month long discussion. Good to know, thanks. For me Lagrange can stays as he is, Italian-French, French-Italian or plainly French. Bye.Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Sapphorain:, I was surprised to see you insist that Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician and astronomer, is not notable mainly for past events, and that Alessandro "dishonestly"[68] left out the complete sentence about what happens in modern-day cases. Do you think Lagrange is a modern-day case? Of course he's notable for past events — he's a past-events guy! I have placed a personal attack warning on your page; please don't disparage other editors and don't call anybody here "dishonest" again — especially not without cause.
• As for the authority of the Manual of style, of which WP:OPENPARA is part, both policies and guidelines describe community standards. People can override a guideline in a particular case if they have a good reason. But the reason Sapphorain gives for advocating mention of both nationalities in the lead, namely that "the interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange", isn't really a good reason. If Lagrange was a modern figure it would be difficult, yes. Since he's an Enlightenment figure it's pretty easy. Please don't insist, Sapphorain. If you think WP:OPENPARA should be changed to allow for double nationality in the lead in this case, I think Alessandro's advice to open a discussion at WT:MOS is good. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: The distortion or mutilation of a citation in order to make a point is dishonest. The observation that such a distortion was made is not an attack, it is just … an observation. I am calling a cat a cat, and there is no way I will not mention such a fact just in order to be nice. Now, the complete sentence in WP:OPENPARA reads "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You oppose me that does not apply to Lagrange because he is not modern enough. But how then can you accept the conclusion given (about the nationality in the lead), when it is justified by a portion of the very same sentence, from which the precision "in most modern-day cases" has simply been removed ?! Sapphorain (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, the only reason why I did not cite also the first part of the sentence, is that it does not apply to Lagrange, who - as @Bishonen: rightly pointed out, is known mainly "for past events", since he is dead since more than 200 years. I reported above the statement of an user who explains the guideline, but you prefer to ignore it. In summary, the fact that you accused me of being dishonest only shows that you are struggling to maintain your point, without even trying to understand what I wrote. Here none is contesting that Lagrange became - late in his life - French citizen: we are discussing what has to be written in the lead, according to the manual of style. As I wrote above, the introduction of the double nationality is generally not allowed by the WP:OPENPARA guideline, and has been discussed ad nauseam in several cases. Above, I gave you the link to the discussion about Enrico Fermi, here, but you disregarded it too. Fermi and Lagrange cases are quite similar: both born as Italian, both known "for past events", both notable at the time of their emigration from their country, both emigrated, both citizens of another country. In Fermi's case there was consensus to define him "Italian" in the lead, applying the WP:OPENPARA guideline. This means that the same consensus applies for Lagrange, unless you explain us why we should do an exception. The only difference between Fermi's and Lagrange's article is that while the first was a battleground for years because of the nationality issue, in the case of Lagrange there was a remarkable stability, and the few users who introduced the French nationality did not start an edit war like you after reading the WP:OPENPARA guideline. I would also notice that 2 years ago you started another edit war with another user on the same article, and that in this occasion you left in place Lagrange's Italian nationality without introducing the French one. I would like to know why now you changed your mind. Anyway, my proposal remains always the same: reverting the article about Lagrange to the stable version, and opening together a thread at WT:MOS raising the issue of the double nationality. Alex2006 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I am not at all convinced by you explanation. The beginning « In modern-day cases » clearly applies to the whole sentence, and not only to the end of it. Otherwise there would be a second sentence. So either the whole sentence applies to Lagrange, or none of it. May I recall by the way that historians typically date the end of the early modern period at the 1789 French Revolution (were the modern period begins). So Lagrange is a figure of early modern or modern history.

Your surprise at what you call my change of mind regarding this matter is … surprising. Well, it so happen that I didn’t notice this problem in the lead at the time (and anyway, people might change their minds when new data becomes available to them).

I agree that the matter must be discussed at WT:MOS (or elsewhere: it is not really a matter of style, but of accuracy). The case of Lagrange is definitely not as straightforward as you present it. A number of reliable sources classify him as French. That the Petit Larousse and Petit Robert should do so is not very surprising. But it is also the denomination given by the Encyclopedia Americana (which, by the way, describes Fermi as « Italo-American » ). So in Lagrange case the best solution is to mention both nationalities. Sapphorain (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, you are really climbing mirrors. ;-) "Most modern-day cases" has nothing to do with modern age: ;-) Modern day (look, we have an article on Wikipedia) is a synonym for present time. "Notable for past events" is clearly disjoint from it, means "notable in the past". BTW, if it weren't so, there would be no way to define nationality for people who lived before the modern era. To understand that, please look at the four examples below the explanation in WP:OPENPARA: they all deal with people who are dead (two of them since a lot of time). How can you say that the guideline is related only to modern people, when to illustrate it are used examples of people dead 2000 or 700 years ago? Is Petrarch a modern? And again, what the sources say, here is irrelevant, since this is not a dispute about content. I already told you that I agree that Lagrange should be at best be defined as Italian-French (actually, I would prefer Italian naturalised French, since this describe what happened). But here we are dealing with the usage of a guideline. Alex2006 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in writing the current wording of WP:OPENPARA and Alex2006 is absolutely correct about its intent. Italian is a nationality; French is a nationality: Italo-French is simply not a nationality and a nationality is what is required here. In addition, compound "nationalities" like this are ambiguous: they are not interpreted the same way by all native speakers of English. For most, they are taken as a statement about ethnicity rather than nationality as required. That is, an "Italian-American" for example is usually understood by speakers of American English as someone who may never have been in Italy and certainly doesn't mean they were even an Italian national. It is read as someone who is the descendant of Italian immigrant but who was born in America. It does not mean dual nationality or dual citizenship or anything of the sort that the writer might be trying to convey. This is why WP:OPENPARA specifically states "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Adding any seccond nationality violates this description of what not to do. The intent of the rule is that there be one single nationality in the lead sentence. If the subject history requires further explanation, it should be in a subsequent sentence where the complete nature of the assertion can be fully described rather than glossed over, which is what these pseudo-dual-nationalites in the lead sentence do... gloss completely over a clear explanation. Don't do it: a "hyphenated-psuedo-ethnicity-nationality" does not meet the requirement that a simple actuall nationality is supposed to be here. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Skyerise, thanks a lot for your clear explanation. Since the decision about Fermi's nationality I have been always trying to apply the guideline consequently, especially in those ambiguous cases of "multiple" nationality. On the other side, I understand also the reasons who compelled Sapphorain to insert the second nationality in Lagrange's case. Moreover, I think that the wording of the guideline could possibly be improved. After the end my wikileave, I will open a thread to discuss these issues at WP:MOS, trying to improve it, and I hope that you will join the discussion with Sapphorain and others. Thanks again and merry Easter. Alex2006 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

YCplaer/Orzijunmyeon persistant disruptive behavior possible sock puppetry and vandalism

For the page of Z.Tao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Ycplaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received warning regarding the spamming the article and addition of irrelevant information that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and reverting of page without any discussion or explanation in the edit summary and overall disruptive behavior by Admin Drmies.A 3RR report was filed and this editor was warned by Admin Edjohnston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ycplaer

Due to those edits. [69]She was warned by Drmies [70]She was warned and blocked by Edjohnston

Those edits were reverted and opposed those changes both in user's talk page and on the article's talk page or edit summary. By me. See talk for more detailed information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z.Tao&action=history Open discussion, the game changer, Tao martial artist and bold edit.

However despite discussion being open in the talk page, and admins warnings.

This editor came back again under a different name Orzijunmyeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in order to avoid sanction and resumed the page blanking and the spamming.The page blanking is even more obvious now because I added citations since last edit from YCplaer.[71]I had noticed it before but it was minimal and wanted to assume good faith but now after all the edits I made that this user deleted, it's more apparent, I now suspect that person is a sneaky vandal.

Sentences and properly sourced paragraphs have been deleted without any explanation or discussion from the Edit Summary, wrong information input in the subject's biography like Martial arts tricking performer despite it being wrong and contested in the talk page, link spams that have been reverted from administrator Drmies and myself like fancams replacing news sources citations, links to itunes or chinese music streaming services that require registration in citations instead the the news articles that were there before, copyrighted material. etc...All of these were addressed and opposed in the subject's talk page and edit summary, but these users didn't communicate at all before making those changes.

I believe Orzijunmyeon is a sock puppet because 1. New account 2. Same disruptive behavior, page blanking , spamming and lack of communication or justification for changes. 3.the article was reverted to Ycplaer's last edit. That's very specific and odd for a new editor to do that.

There is no logical justification for why someone who is genuinely interested in improving the page would behave that way. Especially seeing the talk page or the edit summary and being warned repeatedly.

I tried to report on thee intervention against vandalism page for Orzyjunmyeon and got declined, because it's hard to point out the vandalism unless you know the context and go through the whole article and talk page because that person is being sneaky, (but the martial arts tricking performer edit is a big red flag it's odd, he's equally notorious as being a Wushu martial artist as a musician, it looks to me like it's a purposefully misleading edit) and without knowing that Ycplaer/Orzijunmyeon may be a sockpuppet, it's hard to judge, I think I should have added that I sent an investigation for sock puppetry report.

The motives I can think of : The subject used to be part of a very popular Kpop boyband Exo. His departure and subsequent success some Exo fans bitter and/or since he's a young popular star who's gaining a lot of recognition, he attracts attention from some people that are immature.

I think these 2 users need to be blocked indefinitely and the page should be locked to avoid future vandalism under I.P addresses or creation another account that is not verified continuing to disrupt and/or Vandalize the page. TaoWoAini (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPI created is here. As the alleged master was not notified of this discussion, I have done so myself. GAB^Hello! 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

New Development: Now another person is reverting YCpleaer/Orzijunmyeon edits not all but still enough to see the disruptive pattern.12r003hun I suspect meat puppetry. Example of external link spamming that was contested : Chinese streaming sites in citations, like Kugou, Kuwo, 163.music not only in Chinese therefore not relevant on English page but they also require registration. They delete the news articles citations in english about Tao's first album and put this instead.

After each mention of Tao's album they added external links to these streaming sites. This is only the first diff during subsequent edits 12r003hun added the same to the rest of the page were T.A.O is mentioned. [72] 12r003hun deleted the link to the English entertainment news article I added in order to do so. Same as Orzijymyeon [73]

Look how long some citations are after the page, sometimes the original citations are left there but then a bunch of other things are added like after the paragraph after Tao quitting due to injury there was an addition of a bunch of fancams one of them an entire Exo showcase where Tao was absent, due to his accident and the members mentioned him once in the span of 1hr. The same kind of thing that Drmies had warned YCplaer against adding to the page, using the article as a repository for fan material, See Ycplaer [74] and Orzijunmyeon [75] and then 12r003hun [76] I suggest using the find box to find the word contract to find those parts because there is more than one edit in each diff and it's hard to find unless you narrow it down like that especially Ycplaer since it's a bold edit.

There is a lot of link spamming so many news article citations replaced with videos and , containing fan cams, copyrighted videos, link to itunes...see what it looks like in the end.very long citations enumeration after some sentences

Ycplaer [77] Orzijunmyeon [78] 12r003hun [79]

Example of page blanking it's less substantial this time mostly sentences names of people Tao worked with but of of them is very obvious.

The paragraph about Tao's 1st movie role in You are my sunshine, and it's citations were deleted. Instead was replaced by an edit about a guest appearance on a variety show that is completely irrelevant. It already in the table of shows Tao appeared in. and it's again the very same edit that YCpleaer had made see under line 30, 7th paragraph [80] and then Orzijunmyeon did under cover of adding the guest appearing to the page [81].and 12r003hun did the same [82]

Why would one delete Tao's 1st movie role, in a big movie with A list stars Huang Xiaoming and Yang Mi? Or do it to replace it with a normal appearance he did on a variety show with another Kpop Idol Hee_Chul?(I watched it noting special happened, he was a guest he played games) Especially when you made sure to remove any mention of Victoria Song who is another notorious Kpop idol ,that Tao worked with in Zhang Liyin's video in a more notable context (music video was shot like a short film and Tao got to display his acting skills and martial arts for 1st time) Why this inconsistency with editing from all 3 of them?

All of the above were things that were opposed in the talk page, edit summary: page blanking, deletion of the You're my sunshine mention, link spamming etc... So why would 12r003hun who last contributed to Z.Tao's article a month ago, specifically come to revert those edits, and also do external link spamming on this article, when that user was already warned about external link spamming on another page in February and should know by now that this kind of thing is discouraged ? 12r003huntalk

TaoWoAini (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Five

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, with IPv6 addresses: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*

See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3, 4). SLBedit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you filed an SPI, SLBedit? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit - You need to file one. Go here to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to because it's an obvious WP:DUCK. User will continue to disrupt Wikipedia unless admins do something about it. SLBedit (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: It honestly might be more helpful and get you a quicker response... but I'm going to start a subsection below asking for someone to look into a rangeblock. Could you post some examples of the disruption from a few different IPs (and how it relates to a past blocked user)? Or perhaps Diannaa remembers dealing with this one before and can confirm duckness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

Can an administrator look into a rangeblock for the IP range mentioned above (2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[98] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[99] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

September 27 - Removed without comment from Green Bay, Wisconsin, mentions of places of worship for Muslims, Unitarians and Jews, while adding information about Episcopalians.

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI link at the top of this entry contains a couple of summaries of the editing that prompted that original posting (which was mine). That discussion also reads in an uncommonly linear fashion down as far as the collapsed text, for those who are understandably daunted by revisiting the ANI archives. A partial list of similar, post-ANI edits can be found here, under the heading "Packerfansam". I suggest that folks give those two locations a look to assist in understanding the concerns that KateWishing has raised. These and the prior edits are all of a piece. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern of editing seems rather clear and problematic. The two past ANIs past discussions (here and here) strongly suggest a long-term pattern that shows no signs of abating. I would like to hear from Packerfansam before voting on KateWishing's proposal below. That might take a day or so though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to be patient. She can sometimes go a week between edits. (BTW that second link I provided is a Talk page discussion, not an ANI.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Frankly, yes there are a number of things that I disagree about with regards to things like notability. However, there are some instances listed above that I take issue with, even factoring in our apparent differences in beliefs. Referring to the edit on Mentor, OH, the section at the time was about local churches, the title of the section was about churches. There didn't seem to be any major concern about it at the time, and if I recall correctly, the title was later changed something along the lines of 'Places of Worship'. Regarding Ted Turner, it had established in the article that he had declared himself no longer an agnostic. I didn't see if there were exact dates attached, but if that's not a contradiction I don't know what is. Regards to the alumnus of Beloit College, no I'm not particularly a fan of his genre, but if I remember right, at the time I was under the impression that he had also hosted something else in a different genre and so 'TV host' as a more general description seemed like it would have worked fine. I could be or could have been confused or remembering wrong.

I would like to reinforce that if I'm a bit slow in my responses, don't automatically take it as meaning that I'm blowing this off. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as you keep grasping for any semi-plausible reason to remove information that offends you, you're going to keep making these mistakes. You say you removed information about non-Christian religions here because of a "Churches" header, here because (???), here to simplify, and here because it was unsourced? No. All of those edits were made for the same reason. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the clarity and specificity of the concerns raised about Packerfansam's POV editing, it is striking how little reassurance she offers that she is careful to edit free from her (acknowledged) POV, or, that she even recognizes the issue as a proper subject of community concern. JohnInDC (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a large section, like the one at the Eau Claire page should have been better-sourced (see WP:PROVEIT). I would also point out that I've made a number of edits to pages, such as the ones for Pewaukee, Wisconsin and West Bend, Wisconsin, and I made no alterations to sections that apparently stir up this controversy. That would seem to disrupt the so-called pattern. Packerfansam (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal

Most of Packerfansam's edits are helpful, so a topic ban on certain contentious subjects should resolve the issue. I propose: "Packerfansam may not remove content pertaining to religion, sexuality, magic, or the paranormal." This should not unduly interfere with her primary task of improving political biographies (in case it ever does, I'd be happy to review any edit she suggests). KateWishing (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be better described as an editing restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support edit restriction (perhaps the better term than “topic ban”). Packerfansam above acknowledges – albeit obliquely – that certain of her beliefs may conflict with Wikipedia policy. Previously in a similar context, she has indicated that she has “opinions”, for which she is “willing to take the heat”, link. While generally her problematic edits are made without explanation, she has from time to time afforded a glimpse into her thinking by expressly and specifically objecting to material that, by Wikipedia standards, is wholly acceptable. (E.g. Playboy Magazine, here; the “notability” of pornographic actresses, here.) When confronted, she does not deny a POV or that she edits based on it, but instead picks and defends two or three of her least troublesome edits with explanations that can be at least tied back to proper policies, and foregoes comment on the balance. This has been going on for more than a year. Packerfansam has been made abundantly aware of the problem and yet continues to remove material that offends her personally. Her judgment concerning certain topics simply cannot be trusted and she should be prohibited from making edits relating to them. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support after seeing Packerfansam's comments above and JohnInDC's comments, which seem like an excellent summary and interpretation of events. Further, given the diffs JohnInDC provided, I think the editing restriction is warranted. Boldly changing section header here to "edit restriction proposal" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I believe a minimal editing restriction could fix the problem here. Max Semenik (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is virtually no basis for this restriction. Edits such as this are quite appropriate. A formal restriction because she changed "magician" to "illusionist" here? That's ridiculous. Or for removing removing "magician" from the description of John Hamman as Notable alumni from Gale College here? Again, this is ridiculous. He is notable as a Marianist Brother and as a magician, but this is a list of notable alumni from Gale College for which his religious notability is most relevant in a brief description. Contrary to the claims of JohnInDC, Packerfansam does respond to issues raised with her edits. The vast majority of the diffs listed above are OLD, have been previously discussed, and Packerfansam has changed her editing in response to criticism. The few new diffs are almost entirely unproblematic. Let's drop this and handle content issues the Wikipedia way by discussion. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [100] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [101]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [102]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [103] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [104], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

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

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

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

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

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

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [105], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([106]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [107] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [108] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [109] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [110] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [111] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [112] [113]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [114]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[115] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[116] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [117], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [118] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [119] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [120]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

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

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

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

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [121], [122], [123] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [124] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [125] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [126] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [127] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [128], [129], [130]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [131], the other by Iryna Harpy. [132] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries: [133] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [134] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [135] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [136] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative per WP:POV pushing, take it to the talk page instead of sneaking in changes under misleading WP:ES.” [137] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [138] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [139] "blatant POV refactoring.” [140] ”no discussion over WP:POV use of 'incorporation'Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of the problem

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

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

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

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

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

Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [141]: Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. 02:27, 26 March 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [142], while being perfectly aware that they are already included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [143] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary of the REAL problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behaviour of user Volkstod disruptive?

Dear admins. I have stumbled over some really weird edits from the user Volkstod and have since looked at his/her edits in more detail. And a lot of the edits are really worrysome. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[144]] and [[145]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). There are numerous other harmful edits in this users editing history. The user frequently engages into "edit wars" by deleting some content and then repeatedly and continously reverting possible reverts from other users. See here and here for an example. I have left repeated and slowly escalating warnings and notices on the users discussion page explaining the user how to handle such disputes but got only one reply here. The users behaviour since then has not changed. Could you have a look at this user and on how to dela with such editing behaviour? Regards LucLeTruc (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR - [146]

Pushing WP:3RR - [147]

Unwarrented accusation of vandalism of an anonymous contributor

I'd say he's disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. Thank you, LucLeTruc. The user is obviously here purely for the purpose of pushing a political point of view, and has no scruples at all about removing sourced content and adding unsourced opinion. Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC).
• Thank you, LucLeTruc, Kleuske and Bishonen, for bringing down this horrible Nazi ideologue. I'll go through this user's record and revert whatever has not yet been reverted. --PanchoS (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry everybody, I might have promised too much. While most of this user's edits seem to be of lesser importance to us, there are lots of content deletions and minor edits that are hard to verify, but can only be reverted. As many pages have been further edited since, it's quite some work to undo everything. I'm not sure I can get all of this done tonight. It would be awesome if someone could help me by going through some of those edits, preferably starting with 23 August until 29 October. Regrds, PanchoS (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've checked everything starting there, made it until 18:09, 30 August 2015. Laber□^T 05:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Laberkiste: Thank you for helping! :) PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, all. I went through a fairly large tract of the user's older edits and double-checked that any significant deletion had been restored about a week ago... but I didn't keep a list of which articles and dates. I'm about to log off for the day, but I'll be happy to lend a hand tomorrow if the last date checked is updated here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• About 75% of the users edits actually make (some) sense. As long as it fitted to his apparently right wing opinion, he/she did quite a good job, also deleting questionable and often unsourced content, weird formulations and obvious praise or non NPOV stuff from the "left" side. 79.252.88.248 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Judging from the user's edits, this is a former dogmatic left-winger turned to the extreme right. That's a personal tragedy we've seen before. --PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Numerous edits promoting Mr. Jwala Sharma and the Asian society of Safety Engineers

I've been tracking an IP-hopping vandal that makes promotional edits to articles related to safety, inserting sentences and paragraphs that begin with "As per Mr. jwala Sharma (Asian society of Safety Engineers)", and then continue to restate points already in the article, state the obvious, or are copyvios. None of the edits cite any sources other than Mr. Sharma himself. These edits are usually accompanies by an edit summary that same something like "upgraded" or "upgradations". This appears to be a concerted effort to promote Mr. Sharma and the ASSE. I have found over 160 almost 200 such edits from the following IPs:

I have submitted an edit filter request for "jwala sharma", but I'm not optimistic about that happening soon since Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is backlogged by several months. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If edit filters are impractical, how about page protection? How many pages are we talking about? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a partial list or 40+ affected articles, but they keep finding new articles to add him to. Anything in Category:Safety and its subcategories seems to be fair game. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked a couple that were active in the last two and a half hour or so. Strange how they are switching between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and even overlapping with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe one of those IPs just deleted content from here just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So they have. Geolocates to Navi Mumbai (Ghansoli) like the other IPv6 addresses but a different /64 range from yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a couple more IPs: 27.58.157.103 and 27.58.140.243. These don't seem to numerically fit the pattern, but they're also from India (Gujarat). I also added four more articles, which shows that a reactive semiprotect of affected articles probably won't be enough. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And 27.58.14.37, which I've blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I added this to the edit filter, so that should be the end of this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer

I am of the opinion that users Keith-264, Hillbillyholiday and John have been colluding in an attempt to intimidate me so that they can undermine factual material in this article which is properly referenced and sourced in order to promote their own agenda.

• The problems started after Keith-264 deleted much of the lead paragraph on the specious grounds that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately pls take to talk page". This was after Philip Cross had already pointed out to him "That policy applies to unsourced material, not from an RS like the Times.". [148]
• I subsequently restored and edited the deleted data adding additional references. The paragraph was once again deleted by Keith-264 with this comment "Undid revision 711029654 by Clivel 0 (talk) pls discuss on talk page for consensus"
• In an attempt to discredit the sources, Keith-264 then posted on the talk page:
  "Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits." [149]
• Nomoskedasticity then correctly pointed out:
  There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect."
  To which Keith-264 responded in a threatening manner:
  "Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil"
• At about the same time, without posting a notice as required on Talk:Stephen Sizer Keith-264 simultaneously opened a parallel discussion on WP:BLPN [150].
• The conversation then went back and forth simultaneously on both Talk:Stephen Sizer and on WP:BLPN, I was initially unaware of the latter discussion as despite my name being mentioned in the discussion by Keith-264 I was not pinged as he had not include '[User: ]', he updated this some days later when at the same time he also posted the notice on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
• During this time Collect entered the conversation largely supporting Keith-264 who then falsely claimed:
  "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect".
  Keith-264 then threatened me:
  "Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me" [151]
  It should be noted that at this point Keith-264 had only deleted material and had not attempted to add any material.
• Keith-264 then repeated the same threat on WP:BLPN to which I responded:
  "Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it"
  Which he followed up with an implied threat: "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk)"
  followed by an ad hominem attack:
  "If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise." [152]
• For three days the lead paragraph remained essentially bereft of content, and despite having deleted it Keith-264 had made no attempt to try and provide alternate text. I then inserted what I considered to be an accurate account of the controversy surrounding Stephen Sizer complete with source references.[153] this was almost immediately deleted by Keith-264 who again offered no alternative text, so once again left an almost completely void lead paragraph. I restored my deleted text, which once again was deleted by Keith-264.
• Without any prior input to the conversation, Hillbillyholiday entered the fray with a blatant and uncalled for threat [154].
• As Keith-264 was making no effort to add any content, but only intent on removing content, I filed a WP:AN/EW and correctly notified Keith-264 on his talk page. He responded with a threat on WP:BLPN [155]
• Nomoskedasticity then added a replacement paragraph which although likely to be less contentious than my text, still reflected reality.[156]
• Both Keith-264 and Collect made some modifications to the text by removing anything they considered contentious, Collect added a partial quote taken from one of the references. Being a partial quote, it gave completely the wrong impression. [157]
• I completed the quote and added some of the controversial material in accordance with the sources. [158].
• Hillbillyholiday then removed the quote completely, along with other controversial material. [159]
• Hillbillyholiday and I went back and forth a few times, at which point I requested that the page be locked and I started a new section on the Talk:Stephen Sizer page to try and reach some sort of consensus on the lead paragraph. [160]
• I subsequently added a list of five points that I thought could be discussed in order to try and reach consensus prior to us making any attempt at the actual wording. [161].
• Rather than accepting the genuine attempt by myself at trying to reach consensus, this was instead followed up by a number of personal attacks by Keith-264 [162] [163] [164] [165]
  And Hillbillyholiday enlisting John to intimidate me on my talk page by railing against a perfectly rational change I had previously added to Stephen Sizer. [166]

Clivel 0 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject the allegations above as baseless slurs by a vexatious editor and request a ruling from a disinterested admin to end this vendetta once and for all. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Collect, Keith, and I have merely been trying to follow BLP policies.

What really needs attention here are the actions of three editors who think it is acceptable to write Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism in the lede of this BLP.

• E.M.Gregory, who added it here
• Philip Cross, who restored it here
• Clivel 0, who added it here

As has been pointed out by various editors, both on the article's talkpage and BLP noticeboard, this is a highly contentious claim which is not even supported by the sources they have provided. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Respond I made 1 edit; it was well-sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place to discuss the lede Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do, however, wish to point out that the page as it stands reads oddly. The brief lede states that Sizer is a parish priest. It's second sentence reads: "Sizer is also notable for his opposition to Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works." What is omitted is that , Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson (bishop), not for opposition to Christian Zionism but for, "chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [167]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[168]. The lede certainly needs revision to reflect the things that has made Sizer notable, some would say notorious.[169].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I think that the lead is unsatisfactory too and have suggested Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed to be the first ban of its kind issued by [a bishop]. I think something on these lines will give due weight and be notable, reflecting the body of the article in a descriptive manner. I thought that this edit had almost established consensus and that everything else would be aftermath but I was wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits that Clivel 0 is making are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this editor is covered by the arbitration ruling barring editors with fewer than 500 edits from the topic area. I have notified them on their talk page of this restriction. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the WP:ACDS warning on my talk page which I can only assume was made in good faith, nevertheless, as so many Israel haters are prone to point out, anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel are not necessarily synonymous so please do not conflate the two. In this case, this ruling clearly does not apply, because the discussion is about Sizer's dissemination of anti-Semitic material, and not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP made a specific attack on editors on the BLP talk page (bolding his)

"I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN ...

As there was no "collusion" and no "threats" and no "intimidation" on that article, I find the posting here of the same personal attacks to be quite reprehensible. The issue is one where WP:BLP applies, and the issue boils down to whether a claim should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice that a person is an anti-Semite, where prior discussions have averred that such a claim is, by its nature, contentious. Further deponent sayeth not. Collect (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am weighing in to point out that describing many of Sizers' statements and online activity as anti-Semitic is "contentious" only in the sense that the theory that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks is contentions. Sizer asserts that Israel was behind the attacks. Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson for having "chosen to disseminate (material), particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [170]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[171]. [172]. But many reputable sources on Sizer's anti-Semitic activity and remarks exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the article's accusations (The Independent), and the bishopric website has the apology I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided. Seems to me this was a "one-off" per se linking to "WikiSpooks" and was retracted by Sizer - so accusing him of being an unrepentant anti-Semite as a claim of fact is a violation, per se, of WP:BLP. Cheers. And the earlier Daily Mail sourcing which was re-added is not only insufficient to call Sizer an anti-Semite, it quite carefully does not even make the claim which editors asserted it supported. Collect (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments demonstrate why the lead was outside BLP criteria before I edited it. Wikipedia is no place to scapegoat someone or push nonNPOV agendas. If you look at the discussion you will see copious amounts of information that negates all of your claims. Might I suggest that since the Church of England is an arm of the British state and run by David Cameron, a politician, any claim made by any member, not just Sizer must be treated cautiously? Might I also suggest that is is common for newspapers to make inflammatory claims without grounds or with only spurious links to a supposed source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Church of England is headed by the Queen, not by David Cameron, if you want to give it a non religious leader. Furthermore, RS is RS. If newspapers and other R report something, it can be included, even if it doesn't suit your particular POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Windsor is an employee of the state, which is run by D. Cameron. See how easy it is to make claims based on the obvious which are instantly challenged? My POV is clear, WP:BLP was violated in the lead. If you read the discussion you will see that. I want a description of events that are covered in detail in the body of the article. Is that so bad? I also commend "*We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" by John to the audience. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth is a red herring. The point is that reliable sources, including his boss the Bishop, state that many of the things Sizer has written and/or posted on social media are anti-Semitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about Liz but no he didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee campaigning

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

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

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

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

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

Respectfully request:

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

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

Springee has been a problem since day 1. How have they not been indefed yet? 107.181.21.54 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

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

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([173], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([174]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Support - Thank you, EvergreenFir for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. Both users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [175], Callanecc [176], EdJohnson [177] and Ricky81682 [178]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[179]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here (NickCT and Greglocock on the Pinto talk page, CZmarlin and Historianbuff on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [180] I will happily, voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. Springee (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from Ford Pinto where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Callanecc, who on 18 October 2015 asked Springee "I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits." Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am I think rightly proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage, but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.

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

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

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

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

• Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[181]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[182], added back[183]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[184] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [185]. My reply is here[186]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[187] and one in frustration (but not attack)[188]. These are not attempts to provoke.

HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [189]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[190] [191]. My efforts were appriciated[192].

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

Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

Moved from another ANI thread.

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor attacking others at Talk:Twilight

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) seems to be pushing a anti-religion agenda and attacking others at Talk:Twilight. When an editor introduced an edit and started a discussion on the talk page when their edit was reverted, Pocketthis reponded with this rant that says "The subject is "CLOSED" because this is Wikipedia's protocol, and I've been helping enforce it for 5 years. You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person. A person of faith. Please feel free to contribute to in the articles written by those who also live their lives on faith and not fact. No compromise." and this one, saying things such as "This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." and "You can't pray here. Now think of the religious articles as your church. Keep it where it belongs, and all is good."

As per WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack. That seems to be this editor's modus operandi. When I asked him to tone down his rhetoric on his talk page, he stated that because I was part of a (completely different) religion, that I should "bow out" because my "religious sympathies are showing". When I reverted the article back to it's previous state per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, he reverted with the edit summary A Buddhist is trying to reinsert the religious section here. I've done my bit. If you cowards don't come to my aid, this article and hundreds like it will become part of Wikibible and noted on their talk page that YOU have started the edit war! You reversed my removal. Saying that edit-warring has "a guilty party" and it's certainly not them, despite them being the one making all the reverts.

Pocketthis is not a new editor, and should be very aware by now that this kind of behavior is inappropriate. Attacking other editors, edit-warring while blaming every other editor for edit-warring is something that would be expected from a new editor, but not someone that has been here for over four years with a few thousand edits under their belt. Their comments and actions have made it clear that they aren't here to collaborate with others (especially those he feels are compromised by having an opinion he doesn't share), and I really think some kind of administrator intervention is required. Pocketthis has been notified of this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I attacked no one. I am trying to protect the integrity of our encyclopedia from Bible pushers, who use science articles as a venue to preach. This man accusing me of attacking a new user, (which by the way isn't a new user, but an old one disguised a new one), is a Buddhist, and has sympathy for those who would insert matters of faith into a science article. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming Wikibible. I should be thanked, and not spanked. - thanksPocketthis (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• P.S. I have said my piece, and made my edits as to the issue pertaining to religion in the Twilight Article. I am done. There is no need to worry about any further comments by me. If what I have said and done there isn't enough for others to come to my aid, then it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it. - thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis seems to be an atheistic fanatic. Case ends. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, no one is coming to your aid because you are wrong. By comparison, it doesn't matter that I personally think genocide is bad. It's still a thing, and there are still Wikipedia articles on it. It doesn't matter that I think astrology is nonsense. It's still a thing and there is still a WP article on it. By the same measure, it doesn't matter that you and I are atheists. Religion is still a thing that exists, and is therefore an appropriate topic for inclusion in WP. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion Timothy, however, our science articles are being hijacked by religious fanatics. This is the max the Twilight article should have to say about anything pertaining to religion: Many religions view the twilight time of the day as holy, and many activities in various religions are practiced during that time. Anything more, and you start a 10,000 character religious section, inviting every religious faith to come make their pitch. Haven't we seen enough religious destruction in the world to know what they are really selling? It is so obvious and absurd, I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it. From the beginning of recorded time, one faith or another has killed thousands in the name of their God. Why can't we keep a lid on it here? Or at least keep in their religious articles. Miserly loves company, let them be miserable there. - Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Totally not a personal attack. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, sorry man, but your personal philosophical opinion on the role of religion in the grand scheme of the universe simply isn't relevant. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. You don't have a 10,000 character religious section, if you end up with one, then argue WP:DUEWEIGHT. You have a small (severely undersourced) section. So drop the slippery slope. Compare the section under Sun which perfectly appropriately addresses historically significant cultural and religious issues related to the sun, a section which you yourself have edited in the past and apparently had no problem with. WP is not the place to wage your personal social war. All these high handed proclamations about the fate of humanity just makes you look like you're WP:NOTHERE, and your going to wind up banned if you don't get a bit of a reality check. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have already said here that I was done with any further religious editing in that article. I was just commenting here with you as a mini debate. I see that you do not wish to debate, so I am done with debating as well. Good day-Pocketthis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your personal attacks and battleground mentality as much as your editing on the article. You cannot attack other editors on Wikipedia, especially for something as simple as having a viewpoint that you don't agree with. As far as I can see, you don't need to be touching any religious information on any article, because you have shown that you do not have the capacity to handle it, or other editors, appropriately. I don't know if a topic ban is needed, but it might be needed here to avoid a block. I don't know if you're having an off day or if there is a history of this behavior, I'm looking into that now, but the fact that you think this behavior is okay is the real issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly not competent enough to touch religious discussions for the rest of his life (this is coming from a non-theist, hit me). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this was all over, and I really want it to be. On the other hand, I must say that the issue here I have a problem with, even more than the religious sections in science articles, is being accused by the user that opened this discussion, saying that I attacked someone in the talk article. All I did in the talk article was "talk". Yes, my opinion was very concise and deliberate, but that is just because I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I speak from the front of my mouth. There is no speaking from the side of my mouth, or under my breath. I tell it as I see it. I do so politely, and that is not attacking anyone. The person with real issues here, is the user/reviewer that opened this discussion. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I never threatened the fellow in the talk page. The word Attack as used here is absurd. I will admit that as the years go by, I am more convinced that organized religion is not a good thing. To that opinion.....I am guilty. Also, perhaps I have been drinking a bit too much coffee. I'll cut down. Can we put this to bed now? - Thanks -Pocketthis (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person." Puts an interesting spin on WP:BADFAITH (Pun completely intended).

"This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." Really? I mean, hyperbole for sure. WP:CIVIL is a slam dunk. WP:SOAPBOX and a half. WP:NPA just for good measure. (But hey, if this is a way to get rid of the WP donation banner then I'm all for it.)

And this is not to mention that your entire premise is just wrong. Compare the article on the sun, as has been brought up already. Compare bread, gold, monogamy, capital punishment. The topic doesn't matter. If there are WP:RS that make the connection, and it's not WP:UNDUE weight, then it belongs.

The grand irony is, that if you had actually argued against the section based on the weakness of its sources, you would have had a good point. Instead you've nearly categorically disqualified yourself to have that discussion. You just make things worse with the "I just want it all to be over, but before it is, I want to have the last word and make sure everyone knows I'm completely justified.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my perspective on this. First, here is the content that User:Matt1618 wanted to add. Pretty heavy on the Roman Catholic thing, and if you look at Matt1618's contribs, they are 100% WP:SPA for things Roman Catholic, and their username is the biblical verse on which the Pope bases his claim of primacy. In my view, this user is so far here to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for things Roman Catholic, which is not OK. So User:Pocketthis was hitting a mark with their shotgun blasts. Matt1618 please reply here and let us know that you understand that the way you have been using Wikipedia is not OK.

That said, what Pocketthis wrote on the Talk page was out to lunch and over the top. Almost every article on archetypical natural phenomena has a section that discusses importance to "Culture" in various ways (which is really how those article should be sectioned - a Culture section that deals with things like, art, literature, religion, etc). Examples: Dawn#Mythology_and_religion + Dawn#Dawn_in_the_world_of_Art + Dawn#Literature; Blue_hour (pretty much 100% culture); Night#Cultural_aspects; Rainbow#Culture; Moon#In_culture; heck, Mars#In_culture and even Flower#Symbolism. So the notion that "religion" as a subset of Culture per has no place in an article about an archetypal time of day, is just out to lunch. I'll add here that the Twilight article is only part of one WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Time which is defunct and never created a manual of style to guide sectioning, but I would reckon they would have a "Culture" section if they had a MoS.

Pocketthis, you also did nothing to get community input when you had your disagreement and as the more experienced user that would have been wiser of you. And you were beyond blunt and into strident. That is what everybody here has said. So let me ask you - can you hear that what you said about "no religion" was not correct, and that the way you said it was way too strident? If you cannot see those things, there are bigger problems than a TBAN from religion would solve. If you can see that, there is no need for a TBAN, in my view, especially if you can bring yourself to apologize for what you did, too. (for real, not fakey) Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal from the topic of religion

The above makes it very clear that Pocketthis (talk · contribs) cannot constructively edit, or discuss, the topic of religion on Wikipedia. Outside of the topic of religion the editor's edits seem constructive, but if they keep at this they are going to get themselves blocked from editing. For that reason, I propose that the editor be topic banned from the subject of religion on Wikipedia for at least six months. The fact that they don't see their behavior regarding the topic of religion as a problem indicates that they don't need to be discussing it at all. Saying "You don't come with good will. You come with religion." is not "polite", no matter how much Pocketthis says otherwise, and the fact that they are willing to give "no compromise" on the subject means they should not be editing the subject at all. In their own words above, "I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it." This edit summary, more than any other thing, sums up why they should be topic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are a Buddhist that has lost his way. If you would have simply showed up in the Twilight talk page, and asked me to tone it down politely, I would have re-read my reply to the man, and tried to be more forgiving of his relentless posting. However, you chose to come here and make my life miserable because you felt your own faith threatened. Where is "your" compassion for fellow man? You lost it along the way. This isn't the living room with the TV in it asking for donations, or the front gate just waiting for that sought after Watchtower. It is an encyclopedia. This man put 2500 words about Christianity in the Twilight article, and when it was removed, he would not stop posting his opinions. I also didn't stop posting mine. Yes, I could have been more forgiving, and compromising, however, when the fellow lied to me and told me he was just a "new user" trying to do whatever, I closed the door on having an open mind. And......when this is all said and done and decided, the truth about his identity will eventually surface, and you might feel differently. How do I know he is not a new user? All of us that have been here for years know when they are talking to a sock puppet, or a banned user claiming to be a "new user". I don't have to give examples. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't belong here in this discussion. Any real user, that had prior posts, and was respected by the community would have gotten a completely different response from me there. I think you all of know that. I have worked here with the best in the world for 5 years, and you would block me over a talk page exchange with a sock puppet. Sad.. Sad commentary indeed.

• do not support- as recipient - Pocketthis (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time you comment you dig yourself in deeper. You are incapable of discussing religion in a civil manner, for whatever reason. The funny thing is, I'm certain that I've never said I was a Buddhist on Wikipedia. Not just in discussions with you, but ever. I'm an active part of the WikiProject Buddhism, and have a quote from the Dhammapada on my user page because it's relevant to how people should discuss things on Wikipedia. That doesn't make me Buddhist, and the only person who has brought up Buddhism is you, so how is it that "my faith is being threatened"? The Twilight article does not, and as far as I know, has never mentioned Buddhism, nor have I in any discussion with you up until this comment. Yet you see the word "WikiProject Buddhism" on my user page and automatically attack me for it, saying that "because I'm Buddhist" that I shouldn't have any say in the subject of religion, and that my "religious sympathies are showing" simply because I disagree with you. The very mention of the word religion seems to compromise your ability to have any sort of dialogue, and instead you start going into these diatribes that hardly have anything to do with the subject at hand. Instead of explaining why you should not be topic banned from religion, you chose to attack me and what you assume is my personal religion. If anything, that's more evidence that you need to be topic banned before you are blocked completely. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• There you go with that word Attack again. Were you beat up as a child? Seriously my friend, I think the person that is out of control here is you. How have you ever managed to maintain your seniority here with your lack of compassion and diplomacy? Amazing.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temp topic ban due to refusal to stop digging, and tendency toward WP:Discrimination. As for Aoidh, enough, we get it. Shh. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

True. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why don't you fellows go and ban the sock puppet and do something constructive here. I'm being railroaded, and I would find it amusing if I didn't spend so many hours of my life here trying to improve and beautify this place. What a disgrace this is. Other than the level headed admin that ended this case, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is how you treat a 5 year veteran of the site that has fought vandalizum tooth and nail here everyday. I have beautified your articles with photography, and made some of the best friends of my life here, of which I do not plan on informing them of this atrocity, or ask for their help. Have fun here wolf-pack, and thank you "starter of this thread". You have only reinforced my feelings about those involved in organized religion. My advice is don't look in the mirror tonight, you might not like what you see.Pocketthis (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dood. So much melodrama. Schtap. This is the problem. Learn to learn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Insulting other editors proves no understanding of the "write for the enemy" aspect of NPOV. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite topic ban. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Doesn't seem to be able to edit neutrally on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban, minimum 6 months or more. Just because this user has spent "5 years beautifying the place", doesn't give them a free pass from disruptive editing, personal attacks and discrimination. - ^theWOLFchild 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (in fact, only certain editors get free passes around here, usually they're buddies with the admins, and this doesn't seem to apply here)
• Support as someone who thinks religion is a bunch of grownup fairy tales, though historically important and worthy, on the whole, for what it tries to do. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Although from a philosophical perspective my thinking is more in line with Pocketthis and EEng, this is an international project which should aim to be more inclusive in its approach to editors. Comments such as those by Pocketthis are counter to these aims and should be duly sanctioned. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see this diff.[193] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not describe the edit here[194] as "administrative". This is a large deletion being made whilst the article is under a long-standing protection allowing only admins to edit. You also stated in the Edit Summary that the addition you reverted was made against consensus - that is not my reading of the Talk page. I also find it "curious" that the admin who made the edit you reverted was the same admin who lifted the block on User:Claudioalv and refuted your accusation of sockpuppetry. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of block

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

• (22:30, 9 February) Claudioalv's first contribution ever to WP is to Talk:European Graduate School here.[195]

• (22:48, 9 February) Claudioalv's second contribution ever is again to the Talk:European Graduate School page here.[196]

• (00:20, 10 February) JzG reverts Claudioalv here[197]. Reverting another user's posting on a talk page is in itself actionable.

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

• (16:16, 10 February) Claudioalv's first contribution to their own talk page was here[198] asking to have their block lifted.

• (23:48, 16 February) Jzg's first ever contribution to Claudioalv's Talk page is here[199].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Shocked" my Great Aunt Fanny. You know, DrChrissy, the more I see your edits in Wikipedia space, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling in order to cause disruption. I'm also starting to wonder about your putative lack of experience here. I would advise other editors to keep a close watch on DrChrissy's noticeboard editing - perhaps it might strike a chord with someone as reminiscent of a previous editor, maybe even someone with a bone to pick with Guy. BMK (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(E/C)@Beyond My Ken: Apologies for shocking your Great Aunt Fanny. Please could you keep the subject of your comments directed to the content, not the editor. Please answer this question directly. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If not, you are invited to strike that last comment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing to strike. My growing impression from your Wikipediaspace editing is that you seem to be deliberately causing problems, just as my 'impression from your conduct is that it's possible you're not as much of a newbie as you claim to be. Those impressions didn't come out of nowhere, they're based on the quality and content of your edits, and they lead to certain possibilities which I would like the community to keep an eye on. BMK (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you are discussing this with the correct editor? I have never claimed to be a newbie apart from my very first edits over 5 years ago. My user page shows I have been registered for 5 years and 26 days and this box has been on my user page for as long as I can remember. I repeat, are you confusing me with another editor? DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, DrChrissy, I know very well that every time you get into trouble, you beg for leeway because you've not been here long enough to know all the ins and outs of the place. I also know that although you were registered in 2011, your editing counts were quite modest until 2015. [200]. I also know that 2015 was the year that your edits to Wikipedia space took off. [201]. (You seem to want to have it both ways: "I am not a newbie" and "Give me a break, I haven't been here that long.") In short, I know who I'm talking about, I'm talking about you and your editing and your disruptions. Those are facts, the questions that're open are if you are being deliberately disruptive or not, and whether the community will see fit to do something about it, eventually. (Aside from your two topic bans, I mean - you do realize that most editors go through their entire productive editing life without ever being topic banned?) BMK (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from an editor who has been site blocked 9 times! I would ask for diffs about my "beg for leeway", but I won't, because they do not exist. As for the frequency of my edits over time - I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Anyway, this is all getting well off the subject of the thread and I am sure readers are totally fed up with your false accusations, so I will leave the last word to you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DrC, it's difficult to describe the many inaccuracies in your post. I have never been "site blocked". I have been blocked for edit warring, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a misdemeanor, for very short periods of time, and when the block is over, I have been free to continue editing, unencumbered by any restrictions. The most serious item in my block log is the one for "abusing multiple accounts", which was, basically, a misunderstanding when I changed screen names without notifying anyone about it - it's all explained in the "My History" link on my talk page, which has been there for years - full disclosure of everything. I have never been banned in any respect, as you have.

You seem not to understand that your two topic bans are very big deals indeed, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fairly major felony. The next step up from multiple topic bans is, most likely, a complete 'site ban, which would indefinitely forbid you from editing Wikipedia again until the ban is lifted. You've already seen how hard it is to get a topic ban removed, please just imagine how hard it is to get un-site banned.

My final advice to you, which you don't want and won't listen to, is to straighten up your act, stop disrupting the noticeboards to make trouble for admins you believe you have grievances against, stop pushing fringe theories in your editing, and edit strictly according to policy. If you do that, you have a chance that your future history here will go a different way, if you don't -- well, as was said below, you're hearing the sound of the community losing its patience with your nonsense. BMK (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure DrC is not a sock, but ... that sound you hear? It's the community's patience being stretched and it's nearly at snapping point. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite possible, I've been wrong about socks before - but I've more often been right. In any event, I've decided that DrC is really not worth the time or attention -- the bottom line is that he's your standard fringe advocate who simply can't work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on non-standard medicine and science, and appears to hold Guy - a firm advocate of those policies - responsible. DrC's motivations are totally transparent, as are his methods. Although more disruptive and persevering than some, his type is pretty much a dime-a-dozen around here, so it's best to let him work his way into more sanctions on his own, since he seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes (like our friend Claudioalv here). BMK (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Endidro

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

Would the community be kind enough to look at the behaviour and edit history of Endidro? I see these problems:

• the editor claims to be four people
• The editor is an SPA, here to promote only a certain Robert Gillespie, who by what appears to be his own account is Baron of Blackhall (note: this may be a complete hoax; according to, for example, this site (which I do not claim to be in any way reliable), the title is apparently held by Sir Ludovic Houston Shaw-Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall, 12th Bt.)
• the editor, on behavioural evidence, shows every sign of being a sockpuppet of Bgillesp, another SPA on the same topic
• unfounded accusations of vandalism and harassment (note: I'm not an admin)
• the editor has already received a clear warning from MLauba regarding (among other things) WP:COI editing, and "wild claims of inappropriate conduct" (this was after an unsuccessful attempt to initiate Arbcom proceedings against me)

I see no evidence that the editor is here to build an encyclopaedia, and plenty of evidence that he/she/they is/are here only to promote this one person. Comment, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been removed by others. In fact, after many, many changes to satisfy what are claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article has disappeared, and has been completely overwritten.

The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article.

Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who.

Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron. Justlettersandnumbers has continually modified, and finally, removed the article without warning or ado. He or she has made threats if we attempted to reestablish the article following our complaints; he or she now wants to know our personal names!

For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines looks now more to arise more from Justlettersandnumbers wish to harass.Endidro (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Under what account name did you all put in those four years of strenuous effort, Endidro? I ask because your account was created on 26 October 2015. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - My only previous experience with this dispute was about 12 March 2016, when Endidro filed a request for moderated dispute resolution about the article. I declined it at that noticeboard on grounds of inadequate talk page discussion. On 25 March 2016 - User:Endidro posted to my talk page, requesting my assistance, apparently a request for assistance in mediating the dispute. I have not researched the history in detail. However, I did notice that User:Endidro has repeatedly used the first person plural pronouns "we" and "our" even after being challenged by Wikipedians, some of whom think that user accounts represent individuals. It is now clear that Endidro uses the plural because they are indeed a plural account. I have no interest in mediating a dispute involving a non-permitted plural account. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The edit histories of all of the relevant articles (Barony of Blackhall, Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, Baron of Blackhall) are hotbeds of SPAs, both registered and IP. Easy to figure out that they are all the same user or "group" (so I think that answers JLAN's question above). Can/should an SPI be filed? Also, in terms of whether the Endidro account is plural -- that could possibly be a ruse, and editing styles etc. should probably be looked at for confirmation. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Further Comment: (1) Of the 15 IP SPAs, 12 of them geolocate to France: 9 to Paris, 2 to Bordeaux, and 1 to Marseilles. The 3 most recent IP SPAs geolocate to Kent, England. (2) I'm wondering if an indefinite topic ban would not suffice for this editor. And if more SPAs pop up, then perform a CU and/or longterm semi-protect the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question - Wouldn't an indefinite Topic Ban mean that shared-use accounts (and this "editor" admits that they are a committee) are permitted if they don't edit in controversial areas? Wouldn't that be a case of overriding a global policy with a local consensus that a policy only applies when controversial areas are involved? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that's on the table, the only options regarding the account issue are "block first and force a user split" or "propose a user split before blocking". Provided of course that the claim of being multiple editors isn't, in fact, a clumsy way to claim strength in numbers by a single editor. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And, in my view, "propose a user split before blocking" is a terrible idea. We need to "block first and allow a user split afterwards". Either the user is telling the truth and is a committee, and must be blocked because we only allow humans and not committees to edit, or the user is lying to claim strength in numbers, and lying violates various codes of ethics including Wikipedia's. Block first and permit the real users to declare accounts, but only if they provide the required WP:Paid editing disclosures if appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm inclined to more leniency, I believe the straw poll below supports that approach, which is in line with policy. No heartburn on my side. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) I'll add that I don't believe consensus is likely to change. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was the only admin participating. Straw poll consensus has been implemented. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I had to edit the article to replace the reference for the current 27th Baron with a citation-needed tag because the reference pointed to someone else. There does appear to be a real-world dispute over the barony, and we need to have Wikipedia reflect the best neutral information provided by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an Indefinite Block

Enacted on consensus that the account issue takes precedence on anything else. MLauba (Talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose an indefinite block for User:Endidro as a shared account, without regard to any other issues. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support per a hard look at their contribs and comments. White Arabian Filly Neigh 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Neutral for now. I believe the user(s) behind the account mistake Wikipedia for a self publishing outlet and haven't grasped that articles here belong to Wikipedia, not to the subject. They should be given a final opportunity to clear up their user account(s), read up what Wikipedia is not, and take in our policy on ownership of content. I however support placing the article page under 6 months semi protection, to prevent socking, regardless of whether the indef goes through. This vote may be freely read as a "support" in case there are any more instances where Endidro qualifies editorial disagreement as harassment or vandalism, or other similar personal attacks. MLauba (Talk) 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support as editor clearly only here to promote, with others on the same account, this individual and his barony, against the interests of the project. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support - Disruption using a shared account on an ongoing basis is a clear violation of the five pillars. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support per all the above save MLauba - whose indulgence I canot agree with; User:Endidro very cearly knows exactly what he/they are attempting to put over.--Smerus (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. We shall break up the Endidro committee and report individually in future. We felt unfairly attacked and thought we could find strength in numbers by using a single voice; clearly not.2A02:1205:C698:9940:B8C3:AB79:2EB1:BAF7 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Each of the editors who was on the Endidro committee must provide the paid editing disclosure if it is appropriate. They also should register accounts. That is especially important if they wish to edit the article, since the article has been semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the committee would have strength in numbers and in legality by being four editors, who would be seen as four editors. Although consensus is not purely numerical, numbers are taken into account; failing to take them into account by a closer is a supervote that requires special justification. By presenting themselves as a single editor, the committee was seen as a single editor, until they stated that they were a committee, which caused them to lose strength of policy justification. It was a strange mistake in reasoning by the committee, but it has been taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:CUA 27

For the past few days, User:CUA 27 has been reverting a valid and good faith edit of mine at USA Rugby. [202] [203] When I tried to politely reason with him on his talk page [204] I was met with hostility and a nonsense reason for the reverting [205], basically, CUA appears to have a problem with a Rugby league hatnote on a Rugby union page because he appears to dislike Rugby league or just thinks its not worthy. IMHO, he is breaching WP:NPOV at this point. After my attempts to reason with him seemed to fail, I invited a neutral user, User:Mattlore (as he is active on both WP:RL and WP:RU) to give his opinion on the matter. [206] After Mattlore seemingly sided with me [207], CUA escalated to making what I feel is a bogus WP:3RR accusation against me. [208] I feel that CUA is now in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:HARRASS and I would like, if possible, an administrator to a) remove the bogus template warning from my talk page placed quite nastily by CUA and b) advise CUA to stop removing the hatnote from USA Rugby. Thanks for your time. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby contains a fairly good record of our discussions up to this point. (The narrative above bears little resemblance to what has actually happened).
May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPA and possible violations of WP:CANVAS? If you think a sanction of this IP and his account(s) is appropriate, a topic ban on rugby union articles may be worth considering, given that the hostility he has shown in recent months towards WP:RU editors demonstrates some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues.
This is my first time I am defending myself here at ANI, so if admins have thoughts on how I could have handled my part better in this unfortunate turn of events, I would welcome your feedback. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add CUA is making baseless Sockpuppetry accusations against me as part of his personal attacks. A simple checkuser would quickly show that I have only edited from this IP and therefore CUA's above defence and ban request to be completely invalid. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Further: I've offered CUA a discussion here to try and end this silliness and come to a reasonable conclusion. (This is 90.214.212.126 btw, Sky Broadband annoyingly resets IP when modem/router resets!) 90.214.212.126 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt being nominated by one of the editors as a neutral party makes me so, but I am involved in WP:RL and somewhat in WP:RU so I'll weigh in with my 2 cents here. In my view, a hatnote distinguishing between an organisation called USA Rugby and one called USA Rugby League is a no brainer and I don't see how it has got to the stage where it has reached ANI as both users should have followed BRD. Mattlore (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've only just seen the conversation at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby and wasn't aware of those accusations when I wrote the above comment. Mattlore (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal request for Boomerang sanctions

IP has violated WP:3RR and is committed to WP:EDITWARRING.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]. After this third revert I gave the WP:3RR warning to the IP [212] and to the user that seems to be the same editor [213]
4. [214]. After this fourth revert, I asked him to self-revert [215], which he refused to do.

CUA 27 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: CUA 27 is party #2 in said edit war. He has has once again decided to make baseless and unproven sock puppetry accusations against me after other established users didn't automatically side with him [216] [217] (he seems to think he has superiority over me because I choose to edit from IP and not from an account.) I am very concerned that his comments here and at Talk:USA Rugby seem to indicate his intentions to avoid WP:3RR by waiting a few days before just continuing the same disruptive editing. I have actually not broken 3RR (I've NOT made the same edit 3 times in a 24 hour period), though I have come uncomfortably close to it while trying to combat CUA's borderline vandalism, which I believe may be exempt from 3RR anyway?

Further, I worry now that CUA, who seems adamant that a Rugby league article must not be hatnoted from a Rugby union article is now way past breaching WP:NPOV and at worst he could even be in serious breach of WP:COI, if as I now suspect, he has a personal association with USA Rugby and PRO Rugby and believes USA Rugby League to be a rival organisation.

Finally, to be clear, my only edits in 2016, or any year of this decade for that matter, have come from this IP and the IP linked from my talk page. CUA is correct to suspect that I have a lot of knowledge of wiki-rules and not a newcomer. I was an active editor from an account until about 2009 IIRC when I retired it. I'll happily pass that account name on to an administrator privately if requested to do so. Thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have given the page in question a 12 hour protection due to edit warring. If edit warring continues after the protection then blocks will be given out generously. I am hoping this will prevent the need for blocks now. HighInBC 03:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Qudghks2020

Career vandal who specialises in blanking, misinformation, and alteration of cited text. Edit history speaks for itself,[218] as does his history of cautions, warnings and general notes for misbehaviour.[219]

An indefinite block seems relevant as this user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. B. Mastino (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @B. Mastino: can you please provide some example diffs? Their edit history from today doesn't appear to be clear vandalism to me. Though I see C.Fred did warn them today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is a perfect summary of his whole modus operandi: [220]. Here's a mean-spirited removal of an in-source note: [221]. Here's an example of his typical blanking without cause: [222]. Sure, there might be a few "good faith" edits in there to conceal his trolling agenda, but myself and others have now dedicated too much time to reverting his "work". B. Mastino (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree this is problematic behavior. Wonder if C.Fred has any comments? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also talked about the user on WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page and was going to do the same until you beat me to it. The user is a constant vandal to wrestling articles, including Alberto Del Rio where he constantly replaces info with original research. [223][224][225] (adding in completely false, unsourced moves and names). He also reposts his created articles that were deleted per AfD multiple times (warnings seen on his talk page). "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I see from your discussion at WP:PW that it's not only you and I who've observed Qudghks2020's endless trolling; another user pointed out his "steadfastly inserting false information".[226] B. Mastino (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I had only seen the recent edits, but looking at his edit history, it looks like he's been making a lot of these same types of edits for going on nine months. Definitely he needs more than a 31-hour block if it happens again; since he's just now on a first final warning (as far as I can see), I hate to jump straight to a block without the proverbial "one last chance". However, I'm not optimistic that he'll suddenly straighten up. I'm not ready to block, but I wouldn't stand in the way of another administrator who thought it was time to hand one out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

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

• He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [227]
  • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[228]

• Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [229]
  • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
    • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

• Here he deletes statistics of Female Genital Mutilation which are well sourced from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [230]

• He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [231] [232] [233]
  • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [234]

• He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [235] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [236]

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

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

Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.

Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [237] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.

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

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

• I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at Female genital mutilation to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [238][239][240] He removed similar material from Iraqi Kurdistan [241] and Kurdish women. [242][243] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [244]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[245], Arabs[246], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [247], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:

Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:

• On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
• He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
• He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
• He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
• He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [248] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [249] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [250]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [251].
• Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Dingowasher and sacked

Reported

• Dingowasher (talk · contribs · logs)

Reason

This editor was blocked for edit warring after report at ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:Dingowasher reported by User:JMHamo (Result: Blocked). The block was issued since the editor, against consensus, kept editing that Jose Mourinho was sacked (see diffs in earlier ANEW report). The reason why I am making a new report is that I just spotted that since that report, the editor has continued to change to "sacked" in sneaky edits despite consensus. He does not stop. Examples can be seen in [252], [253] and [254]. The editor can not be allowed to re add this content over and over again after being blocked for it. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC says he was "sacked" (i.e. fired).[255] It does seem a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Media, specially in UK, announced he was "sacked" even before it was official and they use "sacked" all the time no matter what has happened. There has been many discussions about this on the talkpages and Dingowasher has been aware of this but edit warred anyway, and has now reinserted the same content again against consensus (most likely hoping it wont be dedected, until I did when he was reverted in this edit). Qed237 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And teams will often spin the manner of a coach's departure. That announcement is a "primary source". Can you find a "secondary source", such as BBC, which supports the terminology of the team's announcement? I'm thinking of Giants coach Tom Coughlin, who was pushed out, although the team didn't want to say it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you dont agree with the consensus, feel free to join previous discussions but we are getting of topic. We are talking about a bad behaviour from an editor delibirately trying to avoid consensus to push their view. The consensus that "it came to an end on 17 December" is far more neutral than "was sacked on 17 december ([256]), just like the consensus is. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the term "sacked" is proper. But the question remains, what do the non-primary sources say? Did he "jump" or was he "pushed"? A team's press release is inadequate as a source, and if that's what's being used as the source, you need to rethink it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty of finding a source for "sacked" is key here. Qed237 has misreported the discussion on the talk page where in fact consensus was not reached because all reliable sources pointed towards Mourinho being sacked.Dingowasher (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User:QEDK

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

• Spouting nonsense about G11 not applying to drafts Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here
• Reverted CSD tagging [257] on a hoax article
• Sustained and inappropriate attacks against me that need a boomarang [258] and then [259]
• [260] reverting many changes to policy and immediately asking User:Callanecc [261] to fully protect the page "due to edit warring" to protect his preferred text.
• Seeking more eyes on his nonsense [262] at AN after he spectacularly failed to get any support for a topic ban against me
• Canvassing and speculation about tag teaming [263]
• General incivility and lack of WP:COMMONSENSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat in edit summary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Height is, apparently, so contentious

Chingis1991 has also been a party to the same height edits I previously reported being done by 37.150.210.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I considered reporting this to AIV but Chingis1991 hasn't received a pile of warnings yet although their latest edits seem like POINTy behavior. I considered reporting this to SPI because both the user and the IP strictly make these vandalistic edits to boxing/MMA biographies but I'm not sure there's an intent to deceive. Oddly, Chingis1991 returned to this sort of editing right after the IP got a warning from HighInBC. @EvergreenFir:, please take another look at this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If they do it again after the most recent block warning then I can do something. The only block warning I see is from after their most recent edit. It does appear that they may be the same person as the IP, however I am not 100% sure and thus don't want to act on that. HighInBC 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I'm pointing to an editor and an IP that have done nothing constructive here. Despite that, you seem unwilling to take action. I fail to understand why. This conduct is undoubtedly going to continue; *Treker and I will have to revert this vandalism in the meantime. I prefer to spend my time making constructive edits rather than wasting effort complaining to do-nothing admins. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: WP:RFA is right there. Show us how it's done. SQL^{Query me!} 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is very common in MMA fighters and wrestlers articles and I think far more of them should be protected. I agree with Chris troutman, there is no reason to believe that the user is suddenly going to start doing useful contribution when they have so far only been concerned with screwing with articles in the same way.*Treker (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As an admin I have to assume good faith. This means I don't assume two accounts are the same person without clear evidence, it means I don't block new users who have not done anything since their first block warning, it means I know what is and what is not vandalism. If another admin wants to block then they can do so based on their discretion. Please don't chew me out for not jumping to use my tools when you ask me to.

If you think the admins here are "do-nothing" then perhaps you should run for admin and do a better job yourself. HighInBC 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

English Democrats

The English Democrats are not a far-right party. However the political ideology box on their page says they are "far right". I've been warned about saying this is slanderous. However, it clearly is - especially when the source provided does no even say "far right" but "right wing". Bizarrely I have tried to point this out on the talk page only to get people leaving warning messages on my talk page.

See also my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Democrats#Political_spectrum 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "slanderous" just an abuse of cites - the two given do not support "far-right" at all. Happens far too often on Wikipedia - some folks think giving a "ref" means no one will ever actually check the claim asserted to be made in it. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute to me. GAB^Hello! 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ED are widely identified as far right by WP:RS. ED hates this and fans have spent many hours trying to change this in Wikipedia. Anything more you need to know? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is slanderous is a bad idea since it runs the risk it'll be perceived as trying the same thing as try for the same sort of chilling effect of a legal threat. In a few limited cases like with BLPs, it may be acceptable but the vast majority of the time, you should instead clearly explain what the problem is in accordance with wikipedia policy rather than needing to bring up slander/libel. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When people say things on the article's talk page such as "Since we are required to edit carefully all articles naming living persons, the rule is clear - since more sources just say "right wing" we pretty much have to stick with the less extreme adjective", it seems clear that BLP is being brought up as applying. Sometimes, to some people, rules seem very clear, and policies involving biographies apply to all articles naming living people (even when it concerns the parts that aren't specifically about the people). I sometimes wish I could have such certainties in my life. LjL (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move/combine Babble back to Babble.com

We need to merge the history of pages "Babble.com" and new "Babble" to rejoin "Babble.com" and make page "Babble" a dab-page. The Internet blog website Babble.com was blanked/copied during 2014 (dif563) to hijack the redirect "Babble" (re Tower of Babel), but the notability is more like a disambiguation page, rather than grandstanding for one company, to also list "Babble (company)" inside page "Babble" as another meaning of the word. I think scholars refer "babble" to the Tower, and no way show exclusively a trendy website. // There is already page "Babble (disambiguation)" so easiest to redirect "Babble" there after merge to "Babble.com". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:36/13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Wikid77, the history merge is done with the content at Babble.com. Can we leave it to you to sort out the dab page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

PS Better to move the dab page to Babble and leave Babble (disambiguation) as a redirect per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

New user repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags, recreating article, and more

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

---

The history of CreativArticles5134's talk page looks concerning. It shows that their primary activity has been creating and re-creating the same article they might have been involved with and removing speedy deletion tags from it. They seemingly vandalized the user page (note this isn't a talk page) of the editor who originally filed for speedy deletion. While removing most warnings from their own talk page is acceptable, this note shows they are not acknowledging them as valid warnings in the first place.

Since what I described above is basically all this editor ever did, I am left to wonder if building an encyclopedia is what they're here for at all. LjL (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Your comments were argumentative and off topic. Removal from the page was appropriate, although frowned upon, appropriate and necessary. We disagree, but it is against talk guidelines to make it personal or off topic.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you perhaps expands upon your use of the first person plural? Who, exactly, is we? Your post somewhat begged the question. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "We?" Sounds like a group account. Then there's your original username, which had to be changed for sounding too promotional. Then there's your current username, which still sounds like the name of a company specializing in undisclosed paid editing. Then there's the fact that all of your edits are promotional.

I'm inclined to block. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi We is me and @LjL. As in me and him disagreed, but her did not have to place an incident here. Our argument is not regarding deletion. It's regarding his comments I deleted which were unfounded. Regarding, your point of view to block: I certainly understand this. However, the initial blocks we're blatant spam. And no detailed explanation, even though I left a detailed explanation. And from my point of view was abuse. I listened to the user and changed the user name. Why bring it up? Did you not see that? Are you just muddying the waters?

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL I was referring to the deleted comment. What you said above only refers to this page. Which you exaggerated and created the above comment, and deleted the other comments against you. Please take your due diligence before taking things out of context. And please do not delete comments against you made by users expressing their valid opinions against you.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for your accusations that LjL deleted comments and took things out of context. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ian.thompson Your confusion alone is proof he took this whole matter out of context. It should have stayed in the talk page, but because his comment were off topic he brought them here.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Is making incident claims, exaggerated claims and personal attacks that are off topic. He is inciting arguments and deleting users comments against him outside of his appropriate talk page.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Provide diffs immediately or withdraw your arbitrary accusations. I deleted nothing. LjL (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are LjL's contributions. I see no evidence for your accusations. Did you perhaps encounter an edit conflict? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess the editor remove the comment. Here at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=712235597. So @LjL did not deleted his own comment. Regardless, bringing the original issue here was an exaggerated thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativArticles5134 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, the page is Danny Avila Electric Blues which has been deleted four times from March 26th-27th and are the editor's only contribution, other than talk page attempts to save it. Admins can review the deleted edits and see that it's not acceptable. I'd say we're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

CA please do not refactor your comments as you did here. It makes the replies to your post look messed up. You are welcome to strike your comment but you should not remove it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD I was asked to withdraw it. And thank you.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah @Ricky81682:, saw that. Between that and the "we" earlier, I'm seriously thinking either undisclosed paid editing (both user names sound like companies that would do that) or else an affiliate of the band. Either way, WP:NOTHERE. I need to get to work, so I'm going on ahead with my initial reaction and blocking. Just wanted to see if anything turned up that might've changed things, but nothing did. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You withdraw the statement by writing that you are wrong and striking through the comment rather than deleting it. BTW creating the article three times after it initial deletion and removing the speedy tag is an "exaggerated thing to do" - As Ricky81682 states this SPA is approaching WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@CreativArticles5134: since it seems that you're now blocked, please take some time to consider that I have nothing against you (since I don't really know you) and any "exaggeration" from my part merely stems from the fact that you aggressively kept re-creating an unwanted article and then retaliated against an editor by sending them a completely invalid warning. Those are not nice things to do, are they? If I am wrong and you are not really here just to disrupt and create trouble, then wait some time and make a well-thought-out unblock request where you show you understand what the issues were... but you won't be unblocked if you accuse others, like you did here. LjL (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User:lowercase sigmabot III & blacklisted website/s?

Not sure what is going on with this blacklisted titles issue but sigmabot's user page says for non-admins to report issues here to WP:AIV and the bot didn't archive that article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am also prevented from creating Talk:Nigger/Archive 6, so it doesn't seem to be a problem with lowercase sigmabot, but page restrictions. I think that, the solution would simply to have an admin create the next archive page, but I am unsure if anything else should be done. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created a blank Talk:Nigger/Archive 6. Only admins, crats, and template editors can override the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

reversion of rwsa in a topic because it's not a template and "I don't understand"

today's edit following on from Teahouse discussion by tdw who thinks that a VE of a link is harder to comprehend than a VE of an rwsa link Dave Rave (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Um... In English, please? EEng 03:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

the edit made today, follow the link, following on from the discussion, follow the link, etc etc etc 04:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dave Rave is trying to add a template that only serves to obfuscate a normal link in wikitext and replace it with complex template parameters into the text of articles without ever having gotten a consensus to do this. Someone has made the argument that it makes the complex line diagram templates easier to use in that context, and I'll trust their judgement as to the template's existence since line diagram templates very rarely need to be edited. However, adding this in mainspace serves absolutely no purpose except to make articles harder to edit, and in a whole succession of attempts to introduce it and posts like this on various noticeboards, Dave Rave has not once been able to advance a single reasonable argument why it belongs in a regular article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit is disturbing, where Dave Rave's one supporter on this states that and I quote "you might be able to sucker her into falling afoul of WP:3RR". This behaviour needs to stop on both of their parts. I have always been happy to listen if anyone wants to raise an argument why these link-obfuscating templates should be used, but the only arguments they have even tried to make for mainspace make about as much sense (and are in the same tone) as his post here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask the usual "what admin action is required here?" question, until I saw that rather WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque comment pointed out.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

complex ? simpifies methinks. nevermind the actual edits resolving links to disam that need to be reverted Dave Rave (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a storm in a teacup, especially saying that If you're trying to escalate this from a garden variety edit dispute to the sort of thing arbcom needs to get involved in, you're going about it the right way. Putting aside the hyperbole and ruffled feathers, what exactly in this run of the mill content dispute couldn't be solved by raising a RFC and broadcasting it on WP:TRAINS?

A couple of editors want to use a template to reduce the wiki markup needed, another editor disputes this. Three editors thus go round and round without achieving anything concrete. Run a RFC, if that doesn't work go to WP:DRN, but don't bring a content dispute to ANI. @Useddenim: please do not use such tactics to "win" a dispute. "Winning" does nothing but create bad blood. Blackmane (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a plan. As a new (many years now) editor, I still don't get to see everything, but making it easier versus sticking my head in a sand dune is not something you get to resolve everyday despite much WP: searhing Dave Rave (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have any skin in this. As I said before, I’m not advocating their replacement of regular wikilinks in articles. I just said that it is merely personal preference. Occasionally I’ve used them in an article; sometimes they’ve been reverted, but usually not. I was pinged in the original discussion, so I gave my personal opinion. I see two editors who don't seem to want to “live and let live”, and it’s obvious which direction my sympathies lie, but WP:BATTLEGROUND?—no, not my fight. Useddenim (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ionuţ Silaghi—Abusing Multiple Accounts

Can an admin take a look at this page: Ionuţ Silaghi? There are three accounts that have edited the page (mainly removing speedy deletion tags) at this page since it was tagged for deletion. Here are the accounts in question:

• Acmar tramkas (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedumusus (talk · contribs)
• Francis Hardwh (talk · contribs)

If the page meets the given criteria, can an admin also delete the page, if necessary, too? Thanks!! 172.58.33.176 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The last two accounts were created in the last two hours, an hour apart :o _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Masreliez’s theorem

The article Masreliez’s theorem was just recreated, after having been deleted 6 years ago. Someone should check and see if there is sufficient difference between this new version and the old one, or if it should be a speedily deleted. Swedish Wikipedia has had trouble with people inserting stuff relating to Johan Masreliez in different articles, often with intervals spanning years.

Andejons (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

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

I have challenged his claim to be a biochemist, in the 'occupation' section of the infobox [264]. He also says on his Foundation page: "I'm Olatunde Isaac, a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist". Which university does he work at? His Academia page states 'Olatunde Olalekan Isaac hasn't uploaded any papers yet'. Are there any papers? An 'academic' technically is employed by or is a fellow of some institution, or at the very least has at least one published paper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biscuittin

I don't know what user:Biscuittin posted here to get indef blocked. Not that I think he'll be missed, but if anyone has a copy could they email me, as the subject of the material? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption at Timothy Leary

I have been engaged in a content dispute with an IP, 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, at Timothy Leary. Most recently, this has led the IP to make personal attacks against me, visible here, where the IP describes me as "YOU HYPOCRITE" (capitals in the original). As this is a direct and blatant violation of WP:NPA, I propose that the IP be blocked. I am really sick and tired of this, and believe the situation needs administrator intervention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where FreeKnowledgeCreator is stonewalling an IP, leading him to be annoyed. These things happen, but it's hardly worth doing anything about. The content dispute is in itself not an easy one, perhaps an RfC would actually be the right way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am one of several editors who disagreed with the IP, as you might have noticed if you had followed the discussion at the Leary talk page and at WP:NPOVN. I am actually pretty "annoyed" with the IP too, but I am not screaming at him in all capitals that he is a "HYPOCRITE", and thereby directly and blatantly violating WP:NPA. I stand by my call for the IP to be blocked; it has no right to behave that way. No objection in principle to an RfC. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor calling another editor's deletion of cited text "unacceptable behavior" is hypocrisy when the editor making the accusation has repeatedly deleted cited content his or herself. Calling someone a hypocrite IS NOT verbal abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to try your luck? I'm pretty sure that WP:NPA does mean that editors aren't allowed to call each other things like "YOU HYPOCRITE." It's not an ambiguous policy at all. Keep on calling me things like "YOU HYPOCRITE", and the result may not be to your liking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your hypocrisy as an editor over and over again, so with all due respect yes you are indeed a hypocrite. What difference does it make whether I write in all caps or not. Actually the symbol for yelling or raising your voice is an exclamation mark not writing in caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive sock-puppet is back

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

---

103.56.240.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, posted this fake report to EWNB. Since admins don't seem to bother showing up there anymore, I figured I might as well post this here, since this is where so many admins regularly hang-out. There have been previous fake reports such as this, however this one conveniently includes links to some of those previous fake reports. - ^theWOLFchild 10:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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