Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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". [3]

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" . [4] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [5], 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 [6], 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)

Then you will agree that it is appropriate also to remind editors that volunteer Marek, was banned for his pov-editing on Russia-related topics and is one its the most notorious POV-pushing disruptive editors on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([7]) 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: [8] “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; [9] “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.”; [10] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [11] “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; [12] “…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 [13] [14]

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: [15]. 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...[16] 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" .[17] 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 [18], 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) [19] 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" . [20] 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 - [21]) : "... 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" [22], [23], [24] 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 — [25] “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; [26] “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; [27] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [28] “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 [29], [30], [31]. 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 [32], the other by Iryna Harpy. [33] 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: [34] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [35] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [36] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [37] ” 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.” [38] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [39] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [40] "blatant POV refactoring.” [41] ”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 [42]: 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 [43], 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 [44] 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)

@Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cabal of evildoers" is Iryna's choice of words, not mine.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 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)

Conducting a year long slow motion edit war, as evidenced by the diffs above, against multiple editors, is most certainly disruptive. That's Tobby. As for your case, I'll let the diffs speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 29 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)

Yes, that was always included. I also rearranged these materials per your suggestions [45], but this edit was reverted by RGloucester. You should probably talk with him. I agree with you or rather do not care. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wishes, I appreciate that you've taken some of my ideas on board and looked for areas of agreement. That RGloucester strongly disagrees, is part of the normal life of Wikipedia — of course people have different views about what to include and where to put it. That's why we need to have civil discussions on the talk pages, without personal attacks. As you wrote earlier in this thread: "people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is this being used as a surrogate for the article's talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Quite a lot has been said here, but by a limited number of people. Almost all of them directly involved with the Crimea Annexation page. Input from uninvolved Wikipedians might help to resolve this rather complex and conflicted situation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Which particular issue is it that you're asking other editors and admins to 'resolve'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the basic issue here is whether all Wikipedia users have the right to be treated civilly, especially on article talk pages? Or whether (as some seem to think) that right disappears if they've been involved in a content dispute with Iryna Harpy, Volunteer Marek, and RGloucester? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a really ... inaccurate way of portraying the issue, especially given the well documented disruptive editing by Tobby72 and other users above. However, seeing as how nobody uninvolved has bothered to get in on this, it's probably a good idea for you to drop this, rather than keep on beating this dead horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe someone possesses an everlasting "get out of jail free" card and is understandably just taking advantage of it. This has been going on for years, and will continue for years more. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Stop using the ANI and article talk pages for grinding your WP:AXE against admins and other editors you hold a WP:GRUDGE against. From what I've seen, your list of grudges is very, very long, and is a greater indictment of your own editing practices than that of those of the people you choose to cast WP:ASPERSIONS about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that this will never end. So, deal with it ...

Volunteer Marek — 00:00, 15 March 2016 — "Your opinion is noted. And also irrelevant. ... Can you please self-revert your disruptive edit .."

Volunteer Marek — 23:24, 26 March 2016 — ".. and then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time."

Volunteer Marek — 05:15, 27 March 2016 — ".. demand that others "assume good faith" even as you blatantly try to WP:GAME'em.."

Volunteer Marek — 22:33, 8 April 2016 — "after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience ... So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive." -- Tobby72 (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A comment from somebody not involved with this particular incident. It looks like the main qualms are personal and evidence are character references and, having dealt with all the involved parties (bar Kalidasa), I may as well throw my own 2 cents in. I do not believe Tobby and Haberstr are engaging in bad faith insomuch as I do not believe there is malicious intent. However, their disruptive pattern of editing does suggest to me that they do not have the wp:competence for some of the more controversial topics (e.g., Russia, Ukraine). Given their incompetence and persistence, I can see how others have come to the conclusion that Tobby and Haberstr are acting in bad faith and lost patience. Calling these two 'disruptive' and "POV-pushing' is accurate (calling them 'bad-faith editors' is debatable to me). Hollth (talk) 04:36, 11 April 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)

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 ([46], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([47]). 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 [48], Callanecc [49], EdJohnson [50] and Ricky81682 [51]) 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[52]. 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. [53] 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:

  There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, 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 at ANI at for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - 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 (70%), 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)

Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.

EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify.

Springee has reported HughD 7 times:

1. AE 27 December 2015
2. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
3. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
4. 3RN 22 August 2015
5. 3RN 26 October 2015
6. 3RN 7 March 2016
7. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban

Springee has previously proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN; four times including this current ANI report. I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 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)

Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:

• 19 October 2015 First notice HughD WP:NOBAN request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at User talk:Springee
• 19 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 22 October 2015, 25 October 2015, 26 October 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 26 October 2015 Second notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Third notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 23 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 27 January 2016, 2 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 2 March 2016 Fourth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Fifth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 March 2016, 18 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 18 March 2016 Sixth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD

Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 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[54]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[55], added back[56]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[57] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [58]. My reply is here[59]. 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[60] and one in frustration (but not attack)[61]. 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 [62]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[63] [64]. My efforts were appriciated[65].

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)

Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

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.

and

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...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...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):

• 14 September 2015 Springee reported at WP:ANI for for Hounding and Tendentious editing, report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Beacon Center of Tennessee was to undo HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
• 18 October 2015 Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
• 12 November 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 21 December 2015 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil was to revert HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 22 January 2016 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy was an undo of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
• 4 March 2016 Springee's 1st edit at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. was to revert HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)

Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Above, Springee misrepresented his following behavior, claiming he stopped in the Fall of 2015. Below, Springee wrote on 28 March 2016: "I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions..." Do we have a policy or guideline or community norm regarding honesty in statements in support of a proposed sanction in behavioral noticeboard filings? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, Springee's interpretation is the same as mine. As I was still assuming good faith on your part, I would have said that his block was the result of making an unbelievable assertion in regard his own actions, without saying it was dishonest. With your followups, it was either dishonest or indication of such inability to understand facts as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee followed HughD to a GA review. The above list highlights article space following behavior after Springee's claimed conversion. Other colleagues, including Scoobydunk at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing and Fyddlestix at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#HughD, have compiled comprehensive lists if the extensive following behavior prior to the claimed conversion, thank you very much to them for their support in addressing this long-overdue behavioral issue.

But one earlier episode of Springee following me is particularly telling of Springee's priorities: 11 August 2015 Springee followed me to the Good Article Review of Bernard Stone, a recently passed Chicago alderman, olav ha-sholom, of which article I was the principle author and GA nominator, during collaboration to address issues from the GA review, to argue against GA. Thank you to all for your careful consideration of addressing this disruptive behavior. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional evidence of Springee following HughD In support of the proposed interaction ban, may I respectfully submit for consideration additional evidence (again, in the interest of brevity, the following list is limited to article space, and to where Springee's first edit was a revert or undo of HughD):

• 18 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was to revert HughD after 2 hours
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was to undo HughD after 1 day
• 19 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to The Heartland Institute was to revert HughD after 1 day
• 26 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to FreedomWorks was to revert HughD after 3 days
• 27 August 2015 Springee's 1st edit to Chicago-style politics was to revert HughD after 20 hours

The record is clear that following and harassing HughD is a significant distinguishing characteristic of Springee's editorial behavior of the past year. Thank you to the community for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed interaction ban. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional recent evidence of Springee following HughD

• 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to WP:Third opinion to disrupt dispute resolution at Talk:Ford Pinto.
• 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to History of Ford Motor Company to post an evaluation of an editor at article talk.
• 11 March 2016, 11 March 2016, 11 March 2016 Springee disruption of WP:Request for comment dispute resolution at Talk:Ford Pinto.

Please note Springee's focus on the editor rather than the edits and Springee's relentless efforts to disrupt legitimate dispute resolution steps.

Respectfully request 2-way interaction ban as proposed by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Addiitional recent campaigning by Springee

Sadly disruptive editing continues, undetered by an open ANI filing, and only emboldened by the lack of action on reported actionable behavior.

• 10 April 2016 Springee campaigning.
• 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning, as IP, while logged out, to evade detection WP:STEALTH.
• 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning via mail; 11 April 2016 mail notice deleted after 3 minutes WP:STEALTH.

Please counsel Springee away from their HughD project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [66] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.

General replies to HughD's accusations

HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors. HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[67] and RSN[68] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic. HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [69]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[70] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[71] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page. Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[72].

Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. Springee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request the community please proceed with a close with the imposition of the above proposed two-way interaction ban, as the expressed consensus of uninvolved colleagues. Two-way interaction bans are simple to monitor and effective in preventing disruption. Enough is enough. It is long overdue. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Respectfully request imposition of the two-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:51, 5 April 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)

Oppose The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to Talk:Ford Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - I agree it isn't the main issue, but it's certainly part of the issue. Tackling it would be tackling part of the issue.... What if we don't get an interaction ban? Is Ford Pinto still to suffer? NickCT (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the legitimate fear is that HughD or I would follow one another to yet another article and the cycle would repeat. An IBAN (voluntary or not) addresses part of the issue in that neither editor would engage in an edit war if they aren't allowed to interact. A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted. That would stop HughD from editing the Pinto article. That he seems happy about such an outcome supports the view of several editors that he was only there to wikihound me. This is why I've proposed a modified IBAN with a March 1 interaction date. It would in effect rewind the clock while still protecting the current and future articles. Springee (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see our project's policy WP:IBAN. You wrote: "A standard IBAN would block Hugh and I from editing any article where we had previously interacted." You need not fear being unable to contribute to your articles. You are being asked by your colleagues to avoid interacting with HughD; the proposed interaction ban does not ask you to avoid any articles; our project's interaction ban policy involves no concept of "who was there first." Our project's interaction ban policy states that "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." Please help prevent further distress and wider disruption. Please join uninvolved editors in support of the proposed interaction ban. It's for the best for you, for me, and for our project. Don't be afraid; if it doesn't work, I think you know how to use ANI. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.

I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.

Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [73]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.

List of TEND examples

HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages: One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[74] after seeking and getting group consensus [75]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me. Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [76] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [77]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV. violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[78], [79]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [80] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[81]). Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [82]. Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[83], [84]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [85],[86]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [87]. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[88]. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[89], 2.[90], 3.[91]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[92] I asked a specific question [93]. Other editors noted it was not answered [94],[95]. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [96] , [97]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [98]. One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [99] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [100], HughD badgers EllenCT [101], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[102]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[103]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [104]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[105]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.

I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, you have never commented in concurrence of an edit of mine; your wall of text above documents your obsession.

You revert, without discussion, myself and others, claiming no consensus, even when the consensus against is as small as yourself:

• 28 August 2015 Springee undo of HughD at Chicago-style politics after 16 minutes with edit summary "...not developed with consensus. Please get consensus for this change"
• 8 September 2015 Springee revert of HughD at Halftime in America after 2 minutes with edit summary "Undue tag was removed without discussion or consent."

Numerous additional diffs of this behavior available upon request. Please see WP:TEND: "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." Our colleague Scoobydunk brought this behavior of yours to your attention and to the attention of our community on 14 September 2015 here at ANI in his report Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing. Your least favorite essay is WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".

Then, when I propose specific neutral, relevant contributions at article talk, laid out supported by multiple noteworthy reliable sources with excerpts, you report that at ANI as tendentious! Your project is to ban HughD WP:NOTHERE.

Adding pertinent, well-referenced content is not tendentious. Proposing well-referenced neutral relevant content at article talk is not tendentious. Disagreeing with you is not tendentious.

Please support our colleagues in the interaction ban. It's what's best. You will be happier. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of disruptive editing. Civil disagreement regarding article content, supported with citation to policy, guidelines, and multiple noteworthy reliable sources, is not disruptive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Viewing Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F as battleground behavior and an attempt to campaigning seeking presupport for a topic ban, I can't support this with out a similar topic ban for the op.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project

Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "traveling."

Springee's project is HughD. User:Springee is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and Southern Strategy for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, until ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article, and Chicago-style politics his fifth top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

Springee claims to be a humble automotive writer:

I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. Please support an interaction ban. We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.

The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the question Hugh, why would you follow me to the Chrysler and Pinto articles if you wanted to be left alone? Springee (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, if you're both ok with a voluntary IBAN, great - let's do it. If both parties agree to that then there's not much more to be said. But the long walls of text and bold text arguing isn't doing either of you any favors here. You're just demonstrating that you can't work together without turning every conversation into a mutual vendetta. I understand that you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions, or are at least trying to get recognition that you were "in the right," but that's very unlikely to happen here (assuming the following and goading stops now). Just take the Iban and let it go, before you exhaust the community's patience. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully request close, with community-initiated 1-year, two-way interaction ban, as proposed; under standard, simple well-understood, well-documented, easy to enforce terms as per widely accepted project policy WP:Interaction ban. Thank you to all for your time and attention and patience. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, thank you again for your prodigious patience in attempting to moderating this closure discussion with a gentle hand so we can all move on to improving the encyclopedia. You wrote: "you both think the other isn't fit to edit Wikipedia and are fishing for stronger sanctions"; may I clarify, I am not now nor have I ever sought to ban Springee from anything; I came here in good faith seeking nothing more than a warning regarding notification neutrality. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with a voluntary 2-way IBAN through April 1, 2017 applied to all article pages where we have interacted and with a March 1st exclusion deadline for future interactions. This will allow me to continue the work I was doing in automotive articles (Pinto, Chrysler) but forbid edits to articles where Hugh and I previously interacted (exp ExxonMobil) and forbids future edits (exp if HughD edits a future Coke family site I can not). I agree to the above. Springee (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee, please support the proposed 2-way interaction ban, without conditions, as requested above by our uninvolved colleagues. It is a reasonable, measured proposal. It is the simplest thing that might work. It is clearly what's best for you, for me, and for our project. It is a established remedy with a record of effectiveness in curbing disruption. You are in little position to dictate sidecar terms given your well-documented year-long history of following and harassment. We know you feel you deserve a topic ban on HughD after your efforts on your above walls of text, and we know you feel anyone about whom such walls of text can be written must be deserving of a topic ban. However, your recalcitrance on this proposal and your insistence on a topic ban are only serving to further demonstrate to our community your ownership issues and your obsession with your project of banning HughD. No one is trying to prevent you from contributing constructively to any articles. On behalf of our community, may I respectfully ask that you please accept the proposed 2-way interaction ban; you will be happier. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think only a modified IBAN would make sense. Modifications:

1. Each is banned from articles where the other is a major contributor. If both are major contributors, they are both banned, but A may appeal if A claims that B is only a major contributor in distorting or deleting A's contributions.
2. Each is permitted to make a brief statement about violations of the other one in appropriate forums. (This may have no effect, as I haven't seen a brief statement by either.) He may not make a followup statement unless asked. (Advice to all; don't ask.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I think that's an excellent recommendation. + 1 on that. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll support with the addition of my previous mentioned March 1 cut off. The cut of means if only one editor was involved with the article prior to March 1 they are allowed to remain involved. I'm 100% OK with HughD and I both agreeing to step away from previous mutual topics. Springee (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Two-way interaction bans, as proposed above by uninvolved colleagues, are simple and well-understood by our community and have an established history of curbing the disruptive following and harassment behavior you have demonstrated over the last year. Your attempt to negotiate terms in contrast is a bizarre custom page ban with an unprecedented boundary definition which in effect codifies your problematic article ownership issues in the form of a community sanction, and is nothing more than an attempt to distract our community from your edit history. "I was there first" does not matter on Wikipedia and our community is not going to start with you. Our community has substantial experience in sorting out interaction ban violation incidents and has absolutely no desire to get involved in helping you enforce your baroque conditions. Please see the above diffs: you have earned an interaction ban many times over, accept it with grace. Hugh (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I will remind HughD that he has also "earned an interaction ban many times over." You both have. So stop. Just stop. The ever expanding wall of text here when the community long ago reached consensus on an IBAN only serves to further prove why an IBAN was needed. Wait for this discussion to be closed by an admin, then go your merry ways with your IBAN, and let the rest of us live in peace without having to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of the same thing over and over again. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Close requested

Been 4 days since last comment. Getting quite stale. Since there was !voting and I proposed an iban, I cannot close or archive this myself. Requesting an uninvolved admin look this over and close it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For transparency, HughD challenged the closure by Atsme here. Anmccaff reverted that here, which I then reverted here as I don't see anything wrong with HughD's challenge to the closure by a non-admin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a problem with simply hiding the request. It should be either noted, as you have done, or struck through, or replied to. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

When admins repeatedly give advice but don't take action in these lengthy debates (more time was even allowed in hopes the involved parties could work it out among themselves) and there's still no resolution, the discussion tends to lay idle which is why closing it seemed the best course of action. If the involved parties are still not satisfied, they can always take it to ArbCom but chances are, neither will like the outcome. Perhaps now an admin will do what needs to be done to put this puppy to bed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the non-admin closure with the closer may be found at User talk:Atsme#Non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Springee campaigning. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be closed as no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties. Hugh has stated he would not accept Springee's reasonable modification of the standard IBAN, and Springee would not accept the standard IBAN due to (Springee's perception) of the fact that Hugh edits articles edited by Springee in order to discredit Springee's edits, but not in the same section Springee is editing. There seems to be no traction in the general community for any specific IBAN, although there seems to be general agreement that an IBAN might be helpful.

I suspect the non-admin closure was not a good idea, but nothing is going to happen here. I'm clearly involved, so I cannot close this, even if there were consensus for some action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"...no proposed solution likely to be accepted by the community or by the parties." I again clarify: I accept the above reasonable, measured, simple proposal of uninvolved colleagues: a two-way interaction ban, and I respectfully again beg community support for this straight-forward, proven effective proposal. Not sure how "acceptable to Springee" became a criteria, or how Springee is in any position to dictate terms, given the relentless record of following and harassment amply documented in copious diffs above. A close with no action is counter-indicated by the record. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say, no proposed solution acceptable to both parties, the community, or to admins in general. A specific admin might impose a standard IBAN or Springee's retroactive IBAN, or my modified IBAN. I don't think any one of them is likely to be agreed to by more than one uninvolved admin. I could be wrong, but an article ban on each party to each article where the other is a major contributor seems necessary, but I don't know whether a conventional IBAN would be helpful if neither or both parties are major contributors. I'm not sure about Springee, but Hugh is still testing the edges of his topic ban(s); I see no reason to believe he would not test the edges of an IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've only just been made aware of the drama here... I am the subject of an IBAN, which is a mutual IBAN, and considering the reasons behind it, it seems fair. This situation is however very different. Editor 1. No block history, no topic bans, no drama apart from on issues related to editor 2. Editor 2. Multiple editing blocks within a short period of time. 6 blocks in 6 months. Topic bans. I'm sure he has the best of intentions, however it just isn't working. For his own good, a one way interaction ban would be fair and probably the only thing likely to prevent an indef block from editing. It's unfair for all other editors involved to lose valuable editing time dealing with someone who has already proven how disruptive they can be, and show zero signs of changing in the future. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I view your comment but it seems you only became aware of it due to a discussion that was inappropriately opened at Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F. Battleground behavior on the part of involved parties.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Why would I need an "inappropriately opened" discussion to become aware of this issue, when I'm involved in another discussion currently on ANI? I saw this discussion on ANI, and went to the article in question to get some more background and see if I could help out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You've improperly used scare quotes. It was inappropriately opened. As in it should never been opened in the first place at Talk:Ford_Pinto. And that's how it seems you came to the discussion, key word being seems, as you posted there before you posted here. However, that glaring point shining above is, there's highly inappropriate behavior on part of participants here in an attempt to influence the outcome here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And I posted on another discussion, a few threads down on ANI, before I posted on Talk:Ford_Pinto. Infact, if you want to look at my edit history on ANI, you will notice me posting on a discussion that directly affects me, and then noticing an unrelated discussion in which I give an opinion, a few minutes later on numerous occasions. It doesn't seem like anything, you are making incorrect assumptions, when you could have easily asked "hey, how did you come to notice this discussion?" and got a definitive answer, rather than assuming the worst. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To again digress with you, looking at your edit history hours before you were at ANI. 5 or so hours. And then course 1 hour before you posted here on this subject you had posted at the article in question. Now you've said that isn't what brought you here and while I believe you I don't actually care. To get back on subject, to the salient point, and the relevant discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_user_User:HughD_from_Ford_Pinto was opened before they opened Talk:Ford_Pinto#Pursue_Topic_Ban_for_HughD.3F. They opened this, misusing the talk page a forum and while in battleground mode, to Campaign those who dislike HughD to the ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - I'm confused how opening a discussion on the article talkpage was inappropriate. HughD had created contention on that talkpage. My intent was to ask editors on that talkpage whether they felt his behavior warranted an ANI discussion. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would go further: I don't see how anyone familiar with Wikipedia could think it "inappropriately opened". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, an article talk page is clearly not the place to propose (and gather support for) a topic ban for someone that you're in a dispute with. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. An article talk page campaign against an editor on a article talk page with an open, formal request for comment, the disruption of legitimate dispute resolution attempt, is a particularly onerous form of disruptive editing. Respectfully again request support for the 2-way interaction ban proposed above by uninvolved colleagues. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - You're saying I should have gone straight to ANI? I don't know. I always feel like launching ANI threads at the drop of a hat is a form of WP:WIKILAWYERING. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how many weeks has this been open for now? Two? Three? Do you people want to get yourselves an arbcom case or something? MPS1992 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that's where this will end up - Springee's just filed a new (largely baseless) AE report against HughD though, here's hoping admits there can sort this out. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

If you'll look at this edit you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. WP:AGF speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's WP:NOTHERE on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have every reason to believe that Walter Gorlitz is intentionally presenting only half of the story here. If you look through my edit history, you'll see that I only attack vandals, but not others, and I attack vandals because it's the best way of dealing with vandals. Walter Gorlitz went soft on them and nothing happened, but when I stepped in, the vandals stopped, at least for a few days. Editing is a battleground if and only if the other side is composed of none but vandals. Also, if you look through my edit history, you'll find evidence that I don't just refuse to work collaboratively. It is only vandals and the likes of Walter Gorlitz, a double-standarded anti-diacritic crusader who allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names, that I am simply unable to work with because of irreconcilable differences.

Also, WP:AGF only applies to first-time mistakes, but not repeated vandalism like that in the example that Walter Gorlitz provided. Seriously, if one (especially an admin) can still assume good faith in repeated vandalism, s/he should re-think whether s/he's leading Wikipedia towards the right direction.

As for my use of so-called "non-English" alphabets, as accused by this anti-diacritic crusader, we all know that there's a limitation of 500 characters in the edit summary, which could be too short in some cases, but I still need to explain why I'm revoking someone's edit or why I'm making such an edit. What else should I do other than coming up with ways to shorten my spelling? Walter Gorlitz wants us to "assume good faith" even in the most blatant cases of vandalism, but why isn't he assuming good faith when all I did was using combined alphabets and diacritics to shorten my spelling? Also, for those who are able to venture back a thousand years or two, diacritics and so-called "non-standard" alphabets were everywhere in English, from Beoƿulf to Cædmon's Hymn. If Walter Gorlitz's standards were not double standard, I don't know what is. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 17:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to see the self-deluded hubris presented by Cedric when you look at his claim that he reverted a repeat vandal. The edit made by the IP he made the personal attack on was the editor's first. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEAKENGLISH refers to Modern English, not ancient ancestors of the language Anglo-Saxon or Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European. Excessive use of non-standard spellings (which I'm sure are not even historically accurate to Old English usage) in edit summaries is disruptive. I don't like the character-count restrictions in edit summaries, but Another reason to shut down IP edits! Unless you fīnd proof that Davies actually played for Canada at ANY level, just shut down your computer already would have easily fit. The content of the comment, that IPs should be banned from editing Wikipedia entirely because one IP made a dubious, unsourced edit (to text that was already unsourced to begin with, mind you), is absurd -- almost as absurd, in fact, as calling a user named "Walter Görlitz" an "anti-diacritic crusader". Further, the assertion that WG "wants to purge [diacritics] from all other names" is made without evidence, and wouldn't even apply to User:Cedric tsan cantonais if it was true, as "Cedric tsan cantonais" doesn't contain any diacritics. I've suffered more from the Wikipedia Diacritic Wars than likely both of you combined (perhaps even more than every other editor on the project), but you don't see me making ridiculous assertions like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please feel free to look at how Walter Gorlitz launched his crusade here. As I recall, Walter Gorlitz himself does not speak Serbian at all. Yet, he allowed himself to launch an anti-diacritic crusade on a name that he might not even be able to pronounce. Venturing into unfamiliar territories comes with all kinds of uncertainties, especially when we're talking about an encyclopaedia.

Also, my attitude towards IP edits did not just come out of nowhere after one dubious edit. I've had too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into vandalised by IPs for no reason at all and I've been targeted by several editors hiding behind their IP addresses simply because of simple disagreements. As we Chinese say, "Three feet of ice can't be formed with one night's cold". And yet, Walter Gorlitz, instead of blocking those IPs for vandalism as he should have, he went after me for being to "impolite" while remaining so soft on those vandals as if he was begging them to stop. How is this doing any good to Wikipedia itself? Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 15:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what on earth do you mean "crusade"!? You say his "crusade" was "launched" last May, but when I Ctrl+F-ed his contribs to article talk pages since then for "requested move" and "proposed move", none of the others appeared to have anything to do with diacritics. What's more, when notorious pro-diacritic partisan and infamous Serbian/Japanese/Vietnamese/wherever ultranationalist User:In ictu oculi takes the same side as someone in an RM, I am very skeptical about the possibility that such a user might be an an anti-diacritic warrior. While the tongue-in-cheek nature of the preceding sentence might indicate that I do not take this issue seriously, I do; I've taken far too much crap for it over the years not to. It's obvious to me that either you are paranoid beyond reason about "anti-diacritic crusaders" or that you have some other bone to pick with WG. And you still haven't provided any evidence of where he forced you to adopt your current user name to remove the diacritics that clearly aren't there. Making accusations without providing evidence -- or, worse, providing "evidence" that clearly proves the opposite -- is a form of personal attack.

You clearly have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works: WG does not have the power to block those IPs, as he is not an admin; and even if he was, he would not be able to indefinitely block them as a point of policy. If you have a problem with vandalism (legitimate vandalism, as opposed to edits you happen to disagree with) the place to report it is here. Only users who know they have a weak argument complain retroactively about "vandalism". If you poured "blood and sweat" into an article, it's the easiest thing in the world to revert legitimate vandalism, and if the vandalism continues you can report it and get the page semi-protected. It's therefore clear that what you are talking about is not vandalism.

Also, saying that IP editors "hide behind" their IPs is absurd. By choosing to edit under a publicly visible IP, those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves than you or me of 99% of other Wikipedians with named accounts.

Having been on the project for over three years, you should know all this already!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I have every reason to believe that we're still not on the same page. First, I never accused WG of forcing me to adopt a name without diacritics; Second, all I'm doing is questioning his knowledgeability, which shall be in no way considered a personal attack — In fact, if this counts as personal attacks, I don't know what doesn't. If you wish to question my knowledge in any field, be my guest.

As for the edit summary you showed, can anyone not suspect vandalism when anyone, anon or not, removes a huge chunk of encyclopaedic content without explaining why?

Also, I do not know the history between you and User:In ictu oculi, but according to your standard, calling him/her a "notorious untranationalist" can also be considered a personal attack.

As for why «those editors are disclosing more personal information about themselves» is something I simply can't agree with, WP:NOTHUMAN had made it clear already and I do not plan to re-iterate those points here. I'm not gonna re-iterate anything about presuming good faith, either. But there's one thing that I request you to do: Look deeper into those edit histories. All those IP edits repeated changed the sportive nationality of a player without anything that can be considered as reference. WG himself reverted those edits multiple times but those IPs were simply too stubborn to reason with. The first among those edits might be in good faith, but repeatedly doing that? Maybe you, sir, can presume good faith from those, but the way I see it, those are either vandalism or unconstructive edits.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of treating WP as a battle ground, either. But if those vandalism never happened, neither of us would've been here today. Also, you're making a big mistake by motioning to block me instead of those vandals out there. During my times here in Wikipedia, I dare to say that none of my edits can be considered vandalism. Can you say the same to those vandals out there? I wouldn't think so. Also, why should I be frowned upon just because I demand that all contributors register?

Finally, I don't spend much time here in English Wikipedia simply because my pro-diacritic stance has attracted too much hostility from other editors. So why should I be frowned upon just because the majority of my edits are not on English Wikipedia? I demand an explanation. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said WG "allows only himself to use diacritics in his name but wants to purge them from all other names". This appears to be a reference to his username having an umlaut; however, you did not provide any evidence of him actually trying to remove diacritics from other users' names.

I don't know how you failed to notice that my referring to IIO as a "notorious ultranationalist" was a joke when I explicitly said that I was joking in the following sentence. "ultranationalist" is what LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori -- the real anti-diacritic warriors, against whom you never helped us, call him. If you legitimately didn't notice that I was joking, you should apologize to me for your mistake, but even still you should never assume that what I said was meant as a personal attack, even if it had looked like one.

I never said you should be frowned upon just because the majority of your edits are not on English Wikipedia. Please re-read what I wrote.

And despite your own unending string of mistakes, you persist in claiming that the legitimate mistakes of others qualify as vandalism.

If your English level is low enough that you legitimately don't realize that your language is inappropriate and you couldn't understand what I wrote, then we may have a WP:CIR issue on our hands: I generally support users with all levels of English being allowed to edit, but only if they have the humility to admit that they were wrong; you appear to be defensively striking out against anyone you with whom you fail to communicate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I offer you my apology, sir. Please forgive me for not being able to tell jokes from non-jokes. Honest.

In the mean time, I never took on LittleBenW, Kauffner and JoshuSasori because I never knew they existed. Cédric ^{wants to abolish Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you never knew they existed. That is why you should not be lecturing me about the importance of the "diacritic wars"; I am a veteran of them, and you only showed up as they were dying down. You made your very first edit to English Wikipedia a month after the first of them was blocked, scarcely two months before the second was blocked, and five months before the last. You don't know anything about the "diacritic wars", despite your daring to lecture me on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: This nonsense has to stop. You are not allowed to insult people, not even anonymous editors, and although I share your love of diacritics you have to stop massacring English like you do. 250 characters is plenty for any edit summary, in fact if you come even near to a 100 you should simply write the explanation on the talk page, and write "See Talk: <heading>" as edit summary. And stop accusing people of bad faith when they ask you to follow Wikipedia's rules. You are just in this discussion and the edits that have been linked here in violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:BATTLE. Stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents... Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Uill ju alßo stop prätending yat ye aenglíesc späłing cånväntiöns ðös nawt ehksizt? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Þou have just given me every rēson to believe ðat þou þink I'm just anoðer knok-head hwō just adds diacritics for fun, hwich I have no choiç but to take offenç. I do not just switch up letters or add random diacritics for fun. All my use of diacritics are strictly linguistically and etymologically rōted while WG has publicly admitted that the umlaut in his name is merely a "rock band umlaut". If þou woud like to talk about using plain spelling more often, we coud talk, but I nēd you to wiðdraw or at least rephrase ðis. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So where mine, and it doesn't change anything I said. I'm not going to withdraw or rephrase it. If you insist on not using English standard spellings and hence make your communication incomprehensible to people that doesn't reach up to our knowledge of these characters, some sort of administrative action will be necessary. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just because you want me to switch back to plain English spelling does not mean you can make poor-faith accusations against me like that. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note: I haven't made any accusations I'm a aware of, and definitely not any poor-faith accusations. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever made such a statement. The closest I came to discussing the umlaut in my family name with you was when I stated that it's not my legal (de jure) name in Canada. That does not mean that it's not my family name. When my father arrived in Canada, having spelled his name with the umlaut until that time, he was informed that there is no such letter in English and his family name legally became Gorlitz. All of his, and also my, legal documents and public records are spelled that way. However, my signature has the umlaut, because historically, that is my name, and I have done so since I was in university. My cheques and several other non-legal documents use the umlaut. It's certainly not because of my association with rock music or metal though. If I were to live in Germany, or any country where the character is recognized, I would use it. The point I was making when I explained that earlier is that diacritics are not acceptable in modern English, although they have started to to creep in, either as loans from where we get our loan words (such as in naive/naïve, cafe/café) or as hypercorrections (such as maté tea). The average English speaker would be able to easily transliterate the vowel with an umlaut, or diacritic in relation to the English alphabet, whereas they would not be able to do that with a thorn or other character not found in the English alphabet or unfamiliar to the English alphabet. So, for the official record, I am not against diacritics. What I am opposed to is using characters that are not a part of the modern English alphabet or cannot be easily understood by a reader of modern English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely block Cedric tsan cantonais

I'm usually not one for extreme solutions, but someone who has been on the project for over three years should not be demanding that non-admins block IPs, accusing those IPs of "vandalism" for apparently good-faith edits, accusing those non-admins of imaginary "crusades", or demanding that all IPs be banned from editing English Wikipedia, period, because of something that apparently happened on a different language Wikipedia. Looking at CTC's contributions, it's obvious that the "too many pages that the poured my blood, sweat and tear into" were not on English Wikipedia -- this user has made 96 article edits, only four of which were over 1,000 bytes. I don't know what happened to his edits on Cantonese Wikipedia, but it surely can't justify the likes of this edit summary. While it's possible this user has something to contribute (the clean block log on his main project is ... interesting), it's obvious that he is more of a burden on the project than a boon for the time being; indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks.

• Support as nom. Also pinging Walter Görlitz, since it would be pretty dickish of me to propose a solution, several days late, to a problem he reported without informing him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Slow down I was pinged but I'm not aware of any of this and I don't immediately see a need to block anyone. I would defer to @OpenFuture:'s view of things. @Cedric tsan cantonais: it would be good if you could reply to Open Future, and say "Okay, you have a good point, I understand, I will slow down and stop insulting IPs. My two cents.... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Insulting IP editors is only one of several issues here.

There's also

1. use of gibberish spellings in edit summaries based on a demonstrably-bogus character-count rationale,
2. accusing other users of NPA violations based on his own misreading of their comments,
3. doubling down and refusing to apologize for (2) when it was pointed out to him,
4. violating AGF by accusing another user of engaging in a "crusade" based on one RM from almost a year ago (by the same logic you would be engaged in the same "anti-diacritic crusade", an absurdity I was quick to point out),
5. repeatedly calling edits with which he happens to disagree "vandalism" because they happen to have been made by IP editors,
6. requesting that the admin corps on English Wikipedia engage in some kind of massive anon witchhunt based on something that apparently happened on Cantonese or French Wikipedia,
7. repeatedly referring to this incident on Cantonese or French Wikipedia as justification for his actions, apparently without actually explaining what happened (FTR, I find it highly unlikely that Cedric repeatedly suffered his hard work being "ruined" by "vandalism" -- vandalism is super-easy to revert; more likely, an IP editor repeatedly made well-sourced and reasonable edits that Cedric didn't like; this is why I want an explanation if Cedric is going to keep using dubious anecdotes about foreign-language wikis to justify his actions here),
8. requesting that WG block a certain IP editor for making such a "vandalism" edit, despite WG not being an admin,
9. seemingly accusing WG of trying to change other users' names against their wishes,
10. repeated use of overly aggressive edit summaries, with swear-words and exclamation marks galore,
11. defending (10) with "I was reverting obvious vandalism -- how can you not see that!?" -- clearly either unable or unwilling to get the point,
12. something else that I technically promised not to bring up here unless he persisted, and he hasn't thusfar, but the night is young,
13. refusing to provide an explanation for any of the above when asked,
14. engaging in historically offensive hyperbole (look at his sig); whether or not you disagree with such-and-such Wikipedia content guideline (Cedric apparently hasn't looked at the content guideline he complains about with every post he signs in a while, as it does not say what he claims it says) it is not as bad as slavery,
15. pedantically nitpicking words like "seemingly" and "apparently" in others' criticisms of him in order to dismiss everything they say, and
16. despite clear reasons being given for criticizing his behaviour apart from his attitude toward IP editors, insisting that this proposal to block him is based on a desire to "censor" his views on IP editors.

Most of these look like rookie mistakes, and if a legitimate rookie had made them I would say mentor, not block, but in this case the user has been editing on and off for over three years. Some of them are things that you and I have also committed quite late in our editing careers. But the combination of all of them at this time makes me say a block (without prejudice against unblock, assuming a contrite unblock request, which indicates a full understanding of why the block was made and a sincere desire to do better, is made) is the best option for the community.

And in case it is not clear, my stance on diacritics has not changed in the past three years. I feel the need to clarify this given that little misunderstanding we had on your talk page a short while back. Apparently something in my tone of voice now convinces people that I have turned coat and joined the "anti-diacritic crusade". The reason for the scare-quotes is that, I'm sorry, I am not seeing it as any kind of grand unified crusade since LittleBenW and Kauffner got themselves blocked back in 2013, and Fyunck(click) turned out not to be a massive hypocrite and actually went with the consistent romanization and reliable sources on the Empress Jingū RM around the same time. To quote Basil Exposition, "Austin ... we won."

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Sir, since your accusations full of terms like "seemingly" or "unlikely", I find it nearly impossible to swallow.

Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 16:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I said "seemingly" in line with AGF. If I proclaimed definitively that you did refuse to explain yourself when I requested it, when there was still the possibility that you had just misunderstood my request, it would have been in violation. Fortunately for me, your above response indicates that I was 100% correct, and would have been forgiven for leaving out the "seemingly"s. Please, please, please learn to communicate withnother editors. I said the exact opposite of "seek to block you largely because of my stance towards IPs" -- I posted a laundry list of twelve other offenses you had committed, largely against me, that, when combined, appear to me to warrant an indefinite block with possibility of immediate appeal.

And in my experience, accusing other users of "censorship" has never worked out well for the accuser.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I had never committed any offence against you and I do not intend to, so unless there're miscommunications between us, please stop adding more accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The offenses you commit are against Wikipedia. This is not a personal issue. It's not like you can go around and insult one person and expect that everyone else is OK with that, because they aren't the people being insulted. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Yes, you did. I posted one neutral comment above and was met with a flurry of attacks. Of the above, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 were all committed against me within the last 36 hours as punishment for my crime of analyzing the problem as I see it and commenting accordingly. At this point I have no doubt that if you get blocked you will blame me for it and post on your talk page (or perhaps on Wikipediocracy or some such) about how "Hijiri88 blocked you for your pro-diacritic stance", because you refuse to do the damn research and realize that I have a much longer history than you do of defending diacritics on this site. (Also, like WG, I am not an admin; I have no power to block you, so I would appreciate you not claiming that "blocking you" is what I am doing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. Therefore, I simply can't understand why you're still interpreting them as offences against you personally. Just because I'm the defendant here does not mean you can just keeping adding accusations to the list. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming clear to me that we have little to no common ground on the definition of "personal attacks". What on earth are you talking about? Where in my above reply to you (or even in my long reply to In ictu oculi) did I even mention personal attacks? All I did above was to explain my action and to give you contexts and those are in no way personal attacks, especially not against you. There was nothing in your above comment that explained anything about your actions, although you did provide a new rationale for blocking you (see 15). In fact, you have been roundly ignoring every single thing I say. Please address at least one of the 15 points I raised against you in my long comment above. I'll make it easier for you -- I'll put them on different lines to make them more visible for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The interactions so far gives absolutely no indication that Cedric tsan cantonais understands the problems with his behavior, nor has any intention to stop it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - this seems like a drama over next to nothing, not indefinite block material. Cedric tsan cantonais just needs to be told that Wikipedia is a humorless place, so should stop with the funny diacritics, and if you can't fit a decent edit summary into the place provided then use the talk page, and that it is pointless to insult anons since they either exist in that form so that they can't be insulted or engaged with in any meaningful way, or they exist in that form because they are in a country where far worse things that insults could await identifiable editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, he is not joking. Those characters are not "funny". He is dead serious in his invention of a new, consistent (but to normal people incomprehensible) spelling for English. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary Disappearance

Seeing that there're too much irreconcilable idealogical difference between mainstream English Wikipedia contributors and I, I hereby declare that I'll disappear from English Wikipedia in the foreseeable future. If you want me to stop insulting others, I can do that. However, I reject User:OpenFuture's accusation that my use of diacritics is based on bad faith. I also argue that his refusal to distinguish between linguistically-based use of diacritics and "rock band diacritics" has demonstrated his prejudice against diacritics, which is in contradiction of his claim that he "share[s]" my "love of diacritics". That being said, I also withdraw any and all accusations I've ever made against WG and offer a peace treaty with an apology. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 23:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not ideological differences. You clearly don't understand my ideology, as you have refused to read my comments. You above very clearly indicate that you have not read User:OpenFuture's comments with any care whatsoever -- where did he/she imply that your "use of diacritics" was "based on bad faith"? This indicates that you clearly have not gotten it, and you will continue your pattern of disruptive behaviour unless you are blocked. Please note that I am not trying to "condemn" or "kill" you -- I want you to read our concerns about your behaviour, to understand our concerns, to apologize and promise never to repeat this behaviour again, and then you will be unblocked and be allowed return to constructive editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you're not reading my responses, either. I've already stated that I want to treat linguistic use of diacritics and rock band diacritics (which I don't use) as two things and I've already stated that reduction of my diacritic use to open for discussion, but User:OpenFuture refused to treat them separately. If you look at his message above, the diacritics in his message clearly does not follow any etymological pattern. This implies that he does not understand why and how I use diacritic to abbreviate my edit summaries and that he's treating all use of diacritics indistinguishably.

OTOH, I've already promised that I will stop insulting others and yet you pretend you didn't see those word.

Also, when you talk about offences against you, the first thing I came up with was personal attack.

To respond to some of your accusations:

1. Those are anything but gibberish. Calling them "gibberish" altogether is a give-away that we do not share the same view on diacritics;

4. Yes, that was my fault, and I apologise.

5. Those edits had been previously reverted by other users before I got involved.

7. Just because vandalism is easy to revert does not mean that it doesn't hurt.

9. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

10. Again, my fault, and I apologise.

14. It is disrespecting names that are not of English origins. Therefore, it's bad.

15. You're making the same mistake, good sir.

16. Are you seriously intentionally misinterpreting me or what? When did explicitly say I insisted that this was based on "censorship"? You need to stop making wrongful accusations up.

P.S. I now have reason to believe that we're simply speaking two different languages. And you, good sir, are also making accusations against me based on your incorrect interpretation of my intended-to-be-completely-peaceful words. I never intended to attack or offend you and if I did make you feed offended, I apologise. But I don't think this debate can remain healthy without us understanding what each other intend to say first. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 03:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I support use of diacritics when it is accurate and supported by reliable sources. You make up imaginary gibberish spellings of English words, that show your ignorance of many of the points about which you dare to lecture me, such as the correct usage of macrons (they don't turn the letter "o" into /uː/; they almost always mark long vowels, the one exception I can think of being Chinese pinyin, where they indicate a flat tone) and the correct name of the eth (which you inaccurately called a "thorn"). I don't know why you do this -- you said it was because of character count restrictions, which was a blatant lie; it seems to be an attempt to make disruptive edits in order to make a POINT.

4. I'm glad you apologized. Now please apologize for the rest.

5. No, I was referring to the Canadian nationality edit. It was not vandalism, and no one but you called it vandalism. Whether other editors supported your reverting it, or reverted the same themselves, is irrelevant. You clearly have not read and understood what qualifies as WP:VANDALISM.

7. So you are still refusing to give diffs, then? Vandalism is easy to revert, and if you are so thin-skinned that you don't like anons being allowed edit "your" articles from time to time, then you should not be working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

9. Good, but see 4. above. Also, you should apologize to me for earlier claiming that 9. never happened.

10. Good, but see 4. above.

14. Your signature links to a content guideline that you apparently don't like, and likens it to the North American slave trade. This is ridiculously offensive. However, I apologize for misreading the guideline, which does say that diacritics should be avoided in certain circumstances.

15. You ignored every single thing I said in order to nitpick one word that I said in order to be conservative in my criticism of you. Your outrageous behaviour would have easily justified me not using the word "seemingly", as I was 100% on the money with everything I speculated. And, ironically, in your non-response to this problem you are providing further proof that you are intent on dodging the issue. Also, please don't call me "good sir"; it is belittling.

16. "Also, if you seek to block me largely because of my stance towards IPs, this is called censorship."[106] You posted this 11 hours before somehow completely forgetting about it and claiming only a few lines down that it never happened? Did you really think you could get away with this?

Again, I must say that I have no problem with users with low levels of English being allowed contribute to the project, but they must be humble and apologetic; they should not be aggressively defending everything they say and striking out at other users for criticizing them over their communication problems. If we are having communication problems, it is most certainly not my fault; the only time I used anything other than direct, straightforward English to express myself was when I jokingly/sarcastically referred to In ictu oculi as an infamous Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist and didn't explicitly state that I was joking until the following sentence (although the oxymoron of a "Serbian/Vietnamese/Japanese ultranationalist" should have tipped you off even there).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

All the spellings I used *were* "correct" in the same sense that your are. (I have not, however, bothered to make sure it was consistently applied). The point was to show how incomprehensible it gets to somebody who does not know the alternative etymology and pronunciations of the characters in question, toungue-in-cheek. You calling it "rock band diacritics" shows with ironic clarity that you indeed didn't understand all of it, as you think I just added diacritics willy nilly. I didn't. Now, if YOU didn't get it, how do you expect the average person that knows nothing about these things to understand it? That's the point. You think you are being clever, and you have some sort of agenda, but all you actually do is make it harder to understand what you write. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I have to personal agenda. And seeing that I had mistakenly called your use of diacritics "willy nilly", I offer you an olive branch and an apology. I will disappear from English Wikipedia soon after this discussion is closed, but if you wish to kindly let us drink to the love of diacritics, my doors at the Wikimedia Incubator are open to you. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you now understand that you misunderstood my diacritics. I'm saddened to see that you don't realize that others will similarly misunderstand yours. You are of course free to leave, but it's such a silly thing to do. The Wikipedia policies are in place for a reason, you could just follow them instead. But that's your choice, of course. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A block for bad behaviour and missing the point

• Support Cedric tsan cantonais's edits are usually factual. What I find problematic is his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters. He has agreed to avoid both, but a block, even a short one, would record this decision in the block log. A permanent block or voluntary departure would be a disservice to the community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support 24-hour block I would say longer, given the massive IDHT mess throughout the above discussion (how many times do I have to explain things to him...), but he has a clear block log at the moment, so technically this is a first offense. I would also disagree with WG's rationale that the worst are "his attacks on anons and his use non-English characters"; several named users, including both WG and myself, have probably had it worse than anons at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - It feel punitive, but the argument that it gets logged is reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A block log is not a rap sheet. Nonetheless this editor is subject to a block at any time they resume this behaviour, WP:POINT applies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
  

Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [107] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [108]. I would also like to link y'all to this previous discussion (Thank you so much Calidum for the link) [109]. This is pretty much all anybody would need for "evidence". Winkelvi is basically a hateful hound, and he will just choose one editor and hound him/her to the level that he/she retires. See User:Lips Are Movin for a previous such instance. His hounding goes from making false sockpuppeting accusations to clogging up my talk page with anything he wishes. By the way, none of those files were deleted. He tries to get allies against me, first it was Chasewc91 and now its Chesnaught555. Notice how he took this GA review just to fail it? He didnt even let it be on hold for 7 days. He also continually makes WP:POLEMIC writings about me on his user page, and also supporting any/other deletion (or otherwise) discussion against my standing. He gossips about me on other users' talk pages. And makes a poor impression of mine to anyone I try to engage with. I am now asking for administrator intervention. Note that he is also trying to WP:DOX my country here. Please tell me he doesnt get to file bogus SPIs against me after this IBAN. Cause' it reflects badly on me (and FAKE if I may add).--MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin accepted stuff like [110] and [111] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing for this AN/I here, here, here, here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another policy vio just committed: editing my comments in this ANI here. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another comment and observation: Does MF really want an IBAN? This comment on my talk page and this comment on Chesnaught555's talk page doesn't cause me to think so. The continued responses to me in this filing fall into that, as well. Then there's this comment in the subsection below ("No opposition votes yet, yay!"). It has since been removed by MF. What I am seeing (especially with the "Yay!" comment), is a desire to WP:WIN. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously everyone says "yay" when they're on their way of getting freedom from a hound.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have some concerns about MaranoFan's conduct - and how many edits have you made, just in the last 3 hours, dealing with them? My question is this - why would you want to continue wasting your time with them? They want to disengage - if you agree as well, then why can't we do a voluntary iban here? Ignoring their conduct (which I have not reviewed)... honestly, you do seem to be pretty relentless in pointing out problems with their edits. Why bother? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not so much a desire for an IBAN (which I don't have), the issue is that MF continually brings this kind of stuff up when it's largely his own doing. His harassment of me at my userspace and filings of bogus reports has been going on for over a year. There have been several discussions regarding his behavior previously. His usual response? When things get too hot for him and it's proven he's the cause of the issues he blames on others, he hightails it for the weeds with a script enforced Wiki-break. Admins have warned and warned him. A few examples of past discussions and enforcements (I encourage you and anyone reading this to look at them): [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue, Winkelvi, is not whether you desire an IBAN, but why you're opposing one. MF has requested such a ban, which would immediately solve all the problems you mention, and yet you oppose it. To my eyes, this suggests that your main objective is simply to deny MF what they have requested, to be at the center of drama for whatever reason, or some combination of both. Agree to a voluntary IBAN and move on. If MF then violates the ban that they requested, you have a legitimate complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what the issue is (and it's really about MF's behavior and continued attempts to interact with me at another editor's talk page as well as my own since this was filed), I have a right to oppose an IBAN proposal that includes me. That in mind, how can me opposing it be an issue? Further, this comment from you, "to be at the center of drama for whatever reason" makes no sense, since this filing not only involves me, but the filer put my name in the topic header. Regardless, the center of "the drama" is the filer, plain and simple, as I have pointed out with the numerous diffs provided. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's precisely what this is not about. MaranoFan has indicated that they believe you are hounding them, and that they would like to not interact with you anymore. Your response, here, is that you are not hounding them, and by the way here are multiple diffs across multiple edits showing a variety of ways in which MaranoFan has violated policies. Do you understand that THAT behavior is what is at issue here? You're playing Gotcha with every edit they make, whether it's warranted or not. You've made your point about their behavior - and the fact that it's been posted here means that multiple admins will keep an eye on it. I'm asking that you drop the stick and leave it be. MaranoFan has asked here for an interaction ban with you, and you've done nothing but justify such a ban. So explain to us, please, what benefit to the project would we see from you continuing to interact with an editor who doesn't want to interact with you? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You just told me I should stop giving evidence, then you told me I should drop the stick, and now you're asking me to give you more evidence and not drop the stick? What's more, it's obvious you haven't looked at any of the evidence presented by anyone here, if you had, you would see that I'm not the one who's interacting with this individual. Rather, it's the individual filing the report who's interacting with me. I'm fine with helpful comments from editors, but your comments here are confusing and contradict each other, and seem wholly unhelpful. Further, how helpful is it for you to comment and make demands if you have not truly looked into any of the links provided and given them any reasonable thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. Let's assume that you've proven your point that MaranoFan is being disruptive. I don't concede that, but let's interpret the facts in the manner most favorable to you. So you've made your point - MaranoFan is being disruptive. Fine. Admins are now aware that they are being disruptive. So why would you want to continue interacting with MaranoFan? You want to show that they are violating policy? Mission accomplished. What now? You're posting link after link about MaranoFan, and you've directly responded to their comments here repeatedly, so yes you are continuing to interact. I'm saying that there is no further purpose served by that interaction. So if this person is so disruptive and poisonous, why would you not want them banned from posting to or about you? You would be banned from posting to or about them, of course, but who cares? If you're not interacting with them, as you claim, then what difference would an interaction ban make? "Yes, I agree not to do the thing I'm not doing" is no sanction. Would it make things easier if MaranoFan agreed to the ban first? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if MF would leave me alone. Stay out of my userspace (which he's been warned about continually for over a year), stop filing ridiculous reports against me (which he's also been warned about continuously for a year). He claims hounding but has no proof of it (because I'm not hounding him). If he wants to be left alone, then he can show good faith and do the same. I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN. You do seem to have a knack for this, as evidenced with my interactions with you. If MF is requesting a IBAN, then I don't get the big deal to agree to it. Your posts above, at least to me, do show a sort of hounding and it would do you well to stay away from MF and let others deal with the edits in question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Official discussion

• Support - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. This message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment was directed at Ches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, MaranoFan. It was not appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see how that dif is "harassment" or a rationale against an iban, regardless of who it was made to. I don't follow your argument at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, my argument is that the two editors in question should not interact further (despite MF's posts on WV's talk page after the AN/I filing...) without any formal interaction ban placed between them. Neither party needs this "black mark" sanction placed on them. Is it too much to ask? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fair, I guess I was just thrown off by your "harassment" remark. That seems to be...a bit of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the dif. But if you feel that these two are capable of discussion that won't bring continued disruption to the project, so be it, I guess. I just don't share that optimism, considering how long this probablem has been occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I had asked MF to stay off my talk page, Serge, and yet the posts continued. If anything, this IBAN would be pointless on the basis that I know Winkelvi already has ceased communication with MaranoFan, and yet Marano continues to interact. In addition to this, no administrator could possibly argue that the community is 100% in favour of it. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would close this as no consensus, and I am certain that this will be the outcome. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, its probably good you're in no position to close this discussion then, because you'd be raked over the coals for closing this discussion now as no consensus, considering its only been running about a day, and the last comment was left like 5 minutes ago, so discussion in clearly still active and consensus is still forming. Not to mention it currently leaning towards "support". (But the fact that you don't see that is the very reason why INVOLVED exists, so that's good at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am not an admin, Sergecross73! The Support !votes only slightly outnumber the Oppose ones, so in all honesty I still do not see a consensus. I can see either that happening, or a landslide Support majority later... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but three admins have commented here (Only, Ultra and Serge) and they've all supported the proposed interaction ban. Calidum ¤ 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - If MaranoFan wants Winkelvi to back off then he should back off. Also, MF should work harder at avoiding WV whenever possible. WV needs to learn to stop lecturing other editors and focus more on making improvements to Wikipedia. I fully support the IBAN. These comments are based upon interaction with WV. Please note how WV responds to my good faith comments here. It will tell you everything that you need to know about this IBAN request.--ML (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Insufficient evidence presented to merit an IBAN. Insufficient evidence that lesser remedies (e.g., mutual avoidance) have been tried and failed. I believe indef-length IBANs should be avoided unless that element of the IBAN is independently justified, and I'm not seeing any such justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Is this enough for "evidence"? The only reason anyone opposed was because I was on a script-enforced wikibreak.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Even assuming I could support an IBAN on the basis of that thread, I will not support one of indef length without further justification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The previous request, which was archived without a proper closure, is viewable here. As the filer of that request, I think the evidence there was quite compelling. Though I haven't followed the situation of late, I don't think much has changed between MF and WV since then given the tenor of comments such as "same shit, different day" [119], this diatribe [120] (the whole thread there is truly illuminating), or this pointy revert [121]. Calidum ¤ 17:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I was requested to comment here, which makes sense, as I tried to mediate some disputes between the two of them in the past I believe. Even before that, I saw this pop up on my watchlist was likely going to give my two cents. Anyways, I think an iban would help make both of their efforts more constructive, so they can focus on content and not each other. They're arguments have been going on for a long time, and I think everyone would be better off if they'd just go work on the opposite ends of pop music work on content separately. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling a editor out on their faults and then observing the chastened editor develop ANI-flu is not harassment. I would suggest that if Winkelvi sees faults with MaranoFan's editing, that they bring it to a neutral admin to help correct the issue. MaranoFan should go back and read WP:CANVAS and WP:ADMINSHOP closer as their claims of not canvassing/adminshopping falls flat on it's face. MaranoFan should observe other well established policies (like WP:TPO which prohibits deleting other users talk page commentary barring extraordinary situations) lest they end up on the wrong side of sanctions. This iBan request reads more like MaranoFan trying to neutralize a significant and frequently correct critic of their work, which iBans are not to be used for. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: But it is not Canvassing or adminshopping, these are people who were involved at [122] which was precisely about the same thing as this, only failed because I was inactive.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot see that the items that WV presented are Canvassing/AdminShopping I call into question your competence because the notices are nowhere near neutral in addition to your conduct faults indicates that your privileges need to be restricted, not WV. I again reiterate my advice to both of you. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, possible boomerang based solely on the diffs provided here. MaranoFan has not demonstrated any hounding, stalking, or other inability to edit constructively with WV. WV, however, has provided a good amount of evidence against MaranoFan showing a history of disruption. Given that WV seems disinclined to agree to an iban, it's up to the filer to demonstrate the need for one. I see no such demonstration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But there can't be a boomerang, as I am asking for a two-sided IBAN. There will either be an IBAN or there won't be one. Please get your facts straight.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks, tbans, and one-way ibans are always options. Your behavior here and in the diffs is atrocious thus far... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I've been here for more than 2 years and have participated in plenty of ANI reports since last year. I know well enough that what EvergreenFir is said is correct. Any kind of report will involve scrutiny of editors involved, whether it be the filer or not. WP:BOOMERANG applies to any kind of situation, regardless it be a preposition or not. I recommend that you get your facts straight. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Somewhat based on my own dealings with WV, if MF is requesting an IBAN, then that should be accepted. WV needs to learn how to lay off and know when to call it quits and if staying away from MF will do Wiki good, then it should pass. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per both editors' comments in this thread. MaranoFan asked for the ban but then keeps commenting on Winkelvi, while Winkelvi refuses to stop commenting on MaranoFan. It's obvious that neither one is going to leave the other alone. So let's have an interaction ban, and then some blocks when the ban is violated. Nothing here is going to improve the project one bit - so we need to put a stop to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Any editor should be able to get an IBAN with any other editor if they feel their interactions are not productive. I don't believe that Winkelvi is the only editor in the project who (1) is capable of dealing with whatever problems MaranoFan presents, and (2) would be willing to do so. Therefore there is no need for continued contact between these two parties. It should go without saying that we'll have a problem if MF requests an IBAN with any editor who opposes them; for now, I see this as an avoidable personality conflict. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Ibans burden both parties though. Do you think there's enough evidence here to support claims that WV is somehow harassing or unable to constructively edit with MF? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that an IBAN would necessarily burden Winkelvi. If the concept of a "no-fault divorce" doesn't exist here, it should in my view. If it's not necessary to establish fault, the presence or absence of evidence is irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would find it problematic if a Winkelvi->MaranoFan IBAN were established and then Chesnaught555 started (continued?) to actively oppose MF. WV and Ches are so closely allied that they are effectively almost one and the same person, and Ches would simply become a proxy for Winkelvi in disputes with MF. I'm not advocating a second IBAN at this point, but I hope Ches would recognize the problem and also avoid MF. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, of course sir. I asked MF to stay off my talk page and I hope they follow that advice - I also don't wish for any further interaction with them. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Mandruss. I do hope you understand why I am not in favour of any formal sanctions. Simply informally staying away from MF may be the best way forward, and I do not see any consensus on this !vote. I am certain that Winkelvi will agree on this one considering he is not in favour of the IBAN, either. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Each of these two editors seem to be bringing out the worst in the other, and apparently this has been going on in some form for at least a year. Ultraexactzz and Mandruss bring a lot of clarity to the situation. We don't need a mountain of evidence, nor do we need to wait for a total blowup before we simply tell these editors to stay away from each other, stop worrying about each others edits, and stop posting innuendo on third party editor's talk pages.- MrX 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support if this eliminates the near constant sniping and back and forth bickering between the two users. They cannot keep apart from each other even when they say they want nothing to do with each other. They clearly can't do so the community must force them to avoid each other. only (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand this request, which was brought to my attention on my talk page. Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting. WV has mentioned this person to other editors. Simply not a reasonable request. I get mentioned now and then by other editors. That's how the bisquit crumbles. Nor do I understand the harm done. Mind you am not in the WV fan club, and I assume that's why I was approached, but this discussion does not add to the totality of man's knowledge in any way. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Changing to support based on this discussion, which clarified the need for this IBAN. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting turn of events. Especially since the original premise for your "Oppose" !vote was "Based on the very first post by MF requesting this IBAN, these two editors have not been interacting." - and that premise/observation remains the same (as far as I'm aware and based on my own continued non-interaction with MF). I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain why you have changed this out of the blue, Coretheapple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Core, but personally, its the way you badger and bicker with anyone who disagrees with you in these discussions with these snippy responses, coupled with the fact that these issues with Marano have been spanning months (years?) now. I know you probably feel you're just "defending yourself" or something, but constant aggressive responses doesn't exactly send the "I'm not the type of person to be hounding someone" message you're going for here, nor does it instill confidence about this issue just going away on its own without any action taken. You're not exactly portraying yourself in the best light in these responses (and similar bickering/badgering from Calvin and Ches probably aren't helping either, they just make this all look like an even bigger mess.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that puts it well. My sentiments entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your explanation and Core's agreement with same makes no sense in that (1) It has nothing to do with the IBan proposal; (3) When Core changed her !Vote, I hadn't responded to anyone in this thread for a considerable amount of time; (3) The reasoning you gave seems to be based on a punitive mindset. In other words, "If you respond to comments and defend yourself we will punish you for doing so". None of this has anything to do with interaction between MF and myself (which there hasn't been for a week now), doesn't establish a need for an IBan (no one, including the filer, has been able to provide any evidence to support that need) and certainly doesn't fit the picture of action taken to prevent disruption (prevention, not punishment). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, based on your response, you're not following what I'm saying at all. I'm not criticizing the fact that you're responding/defending yourself, its the way you're going about doing it. Think of it this way. Have you ever witnessed this exchange: A person says something with their voice raised. Another person, in response, says "Please don't raise your voice, I don't like it when you're angry." Then, the first person responds by screaming "I'm not angry! You'll know when I'm angry!". Generally, you'll find the second person unconvinced, because, you know, screaming is a common sign of being angry. Bringing this back to you, you're essentially defending the accusation that you're hounding this editor, by going about hounding anyone who disagrees with you. It makes your argument...hard to believe. You've got an explanation for every example people provide you, but the fact that we keep having these discussions, makes your dismissals hard to buy into. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I do now see your point, Sergecross73. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Just by looking at the back and forth between these two in this thread, it seems obvious they can't collaborate constructively together. An interaction ban is needed to separate these two, and it would be a benefit to both editors and the project.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support UltraExactZZ, Mandruss and MrX have analyzed the situation accurately. I am in full agreement with their assessments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I do see a hounding issue that needs to be addressed, as per WV's message on Calvin999's talk page. However, what I do is MaranoFan's mishandling of the issue. Her/his (I don't remember the gender) message on WV's talk page and what seems to be an edit on WV's user page is enough provoke anyone. I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone, since interaction is very small if at all. As much as I don't like WV, I just don't see how the IBAN is any way going to resolve the issue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this will be my last time posting in this thread I don't see how an IBAN would help anyone But it will help both parties, solving the issue you describe above. This two-sided iban will also prevent me from editing his userspace. As anyone who will read his posts conclude, "WV is asking for an IBAN without knowing he wants one".--MaranoFan (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit as of 09:41, 30 March 2016 proved this to be either a lie or a broken promise and therefore whatever credibility you have left is in the sewer along with other refuse. Hasteur (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have already pointed out, my actions do not merit an IBan. Whether MF's actions do, I'll leave up to others to decide. I will say this about MF running here for his allegations that I am hounding him: He needs to toughen up and stop coming to administrators and other editors with complaints about those he feels have wronged, bullied, harassed, and hounded him. Along the same lines - as others have also pointed out to him - he needs to get a grip on what hounding truly is and isn't. Sans that understanding, it's no surprise to me that he hasn't been able to provide one shred of evidence that I have been hounding him.

I completely object to the proposition that I would have to wear an IBan stigma badge when it's unnecessary for me and when I have done nothing that warrants such a stigma and black mark on my editing career in Wikipedia. And, frankly, I have to wonder MF understands what an IBan will really mean for him going forward.

Something else that needs to be pointed out: one of the big differences between MF and I as far as this report: he has felt the need to go to numerous editors to get support for his IBan "proposal", in fact he has gone to those he perceives to be my Wikipedia enemies and/or detractors. If that doesn't tell anyone reading this something important about MFs purpose in this report as well as his attitude toward me, I don't know what will. On the flip side, who have I gone to in order to gain support? No one at all. Why? Because (1) It's against policy (canvassing), and (2) I haven't done anything that warrants an IBan, therefore, I don't feel a need to defend myself or ask others to stand up for me.

I do need to address those who say that there is continued "sniping" or disruptive/unconstructive behavior between the two of us. Let me point out that a little over a month ago, I tried very, very hard to make a good faith gesture toward MF and offer an olive branch in the way of reviewing an article he nom'd for GA. Everything I did and said from the first review comments to the ultimate fail and final comments (all to be seen here) were fair and extremely civil toward MF. How did he respond? Continuing to chide and poke and behave rudely toward me (example here: [123]). One thing that whole experience shows: I have no problem with or inability in treating MF with civility and fairness. The only one who does have difficulty in this area is the person who filed the report. And, as another already stated, pointing out MFs bad fruit and policy vios and bad behavior is not wrong, nor is it the problem here. The person producing bad fruit and committing policy vios and bad behavior who complains about someone pointing out these issues and running to AN/I when it happens, is.

There's really not much more for me to say, except to address Sir Joseph who tried to put words in my mouth when he said, "In other words, you are indeed requesting an IBAN." No, I didn't say that at all SJ. How you got that impression is beyond my comprehension. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the previous proposal a year ago by Calidum, which had a supermajority of Support, but was archived without close. If this problem has still persisted one year later, it's time for the IBan to happen. After enaction, the IBan can be re-assessed a year from now and if both parties are agreeable, it can be removed. Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - MaranoFan has been bringing all of this on himself for months. He is rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses for reviews on a weekly basis and has no respect for anyone. He is cold and calculating. MF requesting an IBAN against the very placid, calm and peaceful editor that is Winkelvi is nothing more than a childish, immature and non-starter attempt at trying to garner some attention, which MF thrives on. If anything, MF should be banned from contacting Winkelvi, not the other way around. MF should be blocked from editing from his disgusting and highly provocative behaviour on WP over the past couple of weeks. I'm more than happy to provide a multitude of diffs is required.  — Calvin999 09:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle, you are both black.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist.  — Calvin999 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999 Were you joking? WP:KETTLE's existence is ample testimony to this metaphor being widely understood on English Wikipedia, and if you seriously think your being called "black" in this case was about race, then you should be more careful about responding before clicking on the links. In my experiences, calling you a kettle when you call someone else "rude, non-compliant, unwilling to listen and failing to understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia" is a perfectly reasonable argument. (I haven't looked at the rest of the content here, so I'm not sure if you were technically correct; I only posted here because when my browser refreshed after I posted a comment in another thread it jumped around a bit, and my cursor wound up hovering over the word "racist", which peaked my interest.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Calvin999 hasn't provided even a single diff, I feel compelled to state that "rude, non-compliant, not willing to listen, doesn't understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, canvasses ... and has no respect for anyone" describe Calvin999, as evidenced by the mass of notable Adele song articles he AfDed after MaranoFan worked on them, and by these recent ANIs: [124], [125], [126], [127], [128]. And calling Winkelvi a "very placid, calm and peaceful editor" is ludicrous to anyone who has actually interacted with him or looked at his block log or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I said I can provide diffs if required. Since you haven't asked me to provide any, that's why none are here. As I said, I am still happy to provide diffs if required.  — Calvin999 09:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"...or seen his editing style or his bloodhound-like stalking of editors he dislikes or has issues with.". Diffs are required for such an outrageous claim, and I see no reason why this unprovoked, extreme personal attack from you should go unchallenged, Softlavender. In fact, I'm considering opening a complaint about it. You are welcome to give irrefutable evidence that what you've said is accurate or strike it. Your choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus (though that's a far cry from stalking, as such). The fact that you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick would support that statement as well. Softlavender may have been overly harsh in their phrasing, but the sentiment is absolutely on point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"several of your comments in this very thread could be used to support the contention that you have pursued Maranofan with "bloodhound-like" focus" Providing diffs as evidence that this report is not only frivolous but (as another editor noted below) a complete waste of time and to show the filer is walking very close into boomerang territory is not pursuing anyone. It's doing what's required and necessary to defend oneself in this snake-pit called AN/I.

"you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick" Really? Please provide diffs from this AN/I that support such an accusation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

K. Here's one, in which you refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request. There are others, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim was, "you absolutely refuse to back off and drop the stick". I asked you to provide evidence I ever said or did either. You reply with a diff to this comment from me: "I will not agree to an interaction ban because I have done nothing that warrants it nor the black mark it brings.", and then further claim that I stated I "...refuse to stop interacting with MF despite their request" Your evidence does not show I refused to back off, nor does it show I am not dropping the stick. My comment obviously is what it appears: I will not agree to a formal interaction ban because I have done nothing wrong and no evidence has been given by MF that an IBan is warranted. This has already been pointed out by others in this thread, as well. This in mind, I do not deserve nor have I created a situation that the stigma or burden of a formal and/or indefinite IBan would bring. Further, I never said I was refusing to stop interacting with MF. Not once. Again, another misrepresentation from you - actually, an out-and-out lie. I don't appreciate you falsely representing what I've said nor do I appreciate being lied to and about. Especially by an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your entire participation in this thread is predicated on the fact that MaranoFan asked you to stop interacting with them, and you refused. So they came here asking the community to require you to stop interacting with them (and, as part of that, agreed to stop interacting with you in turn). And you opposed the request, repeatedly and at length. So no, I don't think characterizing your response as refusing to back off is unreasonable. I asked you if you'd agree to a voluntary interaction ban, and you refused. "I will not agree to an interaction ban..." you said, at the diff I linked above. What you seem to not understand is that agreeing voluntarily to not interact with someone doesn't put a black mark on any record. No one is keeping score, here. This isn't fucking Reddit or some such. All that means is that - wait for it - you stop talking to or about that person, and they in turn stop talking to or about you. Period. Full stop. They can't be banned from interacting with you without you being banned from interacting with them - so explain to me, please, why you want to continue interacting with MF? You say that you don't, but yet you oppose a very simple request that would end, for the foreseeable future, any possibility of interaction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"No one is keeping score, here" Sure. No one is keeping score. That's a laugh. Obviously, you're thinking of what happens at the My Little Pony and Rainbow Unicorn Noticeboard at Cotton Candy-pedia rather than ANI at Wikipedia. And yes, you have mischaracterized what I said. Several times. Which tells me I need to stop saying anything to you because every time I have responded to you in this report, you've turned my actual words and obvious meaning into something else entirely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, from over here in the cheap seats, your statements have been pretty clear. And you've done nothing to clarify them other than tell me that I'm wrong. So, ok. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also avoid accusing editors of lying, shall we? Really and truly, all that does is prove my point - and reflects poorly on one of us. And it's not me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Block for MaranoFan whose behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we have this as an alternative proposal? I see no consensus for the IBAN, and I do concur with Fortuna here... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am open for that discussion. That comment with its edit summary really showcase how this user reacts and in no way is it acceptable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur, Mirela. Should we start a new section with this alternative proposal? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: A sub-section, yes. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Mirela and Fortuna - filed as subsection below. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with the canvassing, but I agree that MaranoFan needs to cool down. Let's see if an IBAN would allow her to focus on content creation and other more useful activities. I am unfamiliar with the history between Winkelvi and MaranoFan, but I recently see quite a bit of edit warring and disputes arising from comparatively minor issues. SSTflyer 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't see any recent edit warring from me, SSTflyer. I'd appreciate it if you would revise your comment and be more concise. If the edit warring is coming from MF, then you need to say that so others will not get the wrong impression. It's not me edit warring, please correct your comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Neither of these editors have clean hands in their interactions with each other, so a two-way IBAN seems to make the most sense. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Changing to strong support in light of the fact that Winkelvi has opened two fruitless SPIs against MaranoFan, the second of which was pretty much completely frivolous. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to understand the history on the first SPI filed a year ago. I had been undergoing an extreme amount of unrelenting tag-team harassment by both parties named in the SPI in my userspace. It seemed to me (and others at the time, including Calidum who emailed me about opening an SPI on MaranoFan but has since turned on me for reasons I am completely unclear about) that they were the same editor, especially considering how it was all occurring. If you'd like diffs, Starke, I can provide them for you). The latest SPI was poor judgement on my part and I shouldn't have done it. I'm not saying this because of your comment or because of this IBan proposal, but because I have had time to think about it and realized that it was not the best thing for me to do. We all learn from our mistakes, and the last SPI was a mistake on my part. The other one, however, was warranted considering what was happening at the time. The harassment was horrible - and was noted as such by more than one administrator and several editors. It did look like the two were the same person. Link to that SPI here. One more thing: I wasn't the only one who thought MF was socking, Chasewc91 did as well and filed another SPI on MF a few months later here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essentially agree with WP:BOOMERANG analysis by EvergreenFir (DIFF), and harassment analysis by Chesnaught555 (DIFF), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support an IBAN, but I don't support a "boomerang" for MF either. She was provoked by comments about her and is oversensitive. The diffs cited don't demonstrate harassment; I actually think the one on WV's page was a kind of gesture of appreciation, not sarcastic. Let's just drop this big waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (Correcting, now support IBAN.) Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the least we can do to give MaranoFan a break from the harassment I've been observing for months. Softlavender's characterization of WV style is completely accurate. Anything Ches says is quite suspect for as someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of christ... "someone else noted Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." You'd better have a real good explanation along with some convincing evidence to make an outrageous claim like that. Or are you just trying to poison the well? I've seen some shitty, personal-attacky, non-AGF things said about me in Wikipedia before, but that pretty much takes the cake -- along with someone else saying I'm asking for an IBan, someone else saying I've been edit warring recently, someone else saying I'm stalking MF, and an administrator actually saying above (without proof) that I have refused to stop interacting with MF... enough. What a bunch of bullshit. None of it comes with diffs, none of it comes with evidence -- all of it is smoke and mirrors bullshit. So sick of it. All of it. The lies, the piling on, the ganging up, the vendettas. Encyclopedia? What encyclopedia? All this thread is amounting to now is internet flaming and a free-for-all. For fuck's sake. Drmies, Bbb23, NeilN, Ritchie333: will somebody, anybody with sense please do something about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Winkelvi. If you like, I can log out, make an IP edit, and confirm it is me - I live in the UK. Should I do that? Heck, most people know I'm British anyway, just by looking at my written English. I have no issue with doing this. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the "sock" red herring, I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style. I personally favor closing this without action. However, WV doesn't get any medals for his conduct by any stretch of the imagination. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"I agree with Legacypac and with Softlavender's description of WV's editing style." Which is another red-herring as it has absolutely nothing to do with what the original "proposal" and what this report is supposed to be about. I'm not a fan of your editing style, either. Who cares? Your editing style is not the issue just as my editing style isn't the issue. I'm now forced to point out: what can be the motivation for bringing editing style up in a thread that isn't about editing style? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I was bending over backwards by calling it a red herring, and the diffs cited by MF were gratuitous and provocative, and appeared to have the desired effect. Clearly you are impervious to reason over this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WV loves one way interaction bans. How many editors has be banned from his talk page now? Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WV is not the problem here. Possible boomerang considering the behavior documented above. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support These 2 editors, despite the well-established truth that nothing productive comes of their relationship, cannot seem to stay away from each other on their own. It is time for the Wikipedia community to take action and prevent needless bickering. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd also recommend an IBAN between MF and Calvin, even more so than the current proposal. Keeping the three of them separated would be beneficial to all three parties. Azealia911 _talk 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Fine with IBAN, and agreed with Azealia911. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - clearly an issue here that would be resolved with an IBAN. - ^theWOLFchild 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While I am starting to see Sergecross' point re: my responses to comments in this thread, I will not be silent on this !vote. Clearly a retaliatory move based on this exchange and my comments here. Prior to the AN/I he filed, I had not heard of this user and have never had any interaction with them previously. I realize anyone is allowed to comment at AN/I regardless of previous interaction, however, I think that the diffs I provided here along with this diff to Wolfchild's block log (numerous blocks specifically for harassing other editors) gives a good picture of what their !vote is really all about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing out that I have an active report on ANI - that's why I'm here. And yes, our recent interactions demonstrated to me your poor attitude towards others and this project in general. Unlike you, I actually took the time to read through the ANI I'm commenting on, and can easily see that an IBAN is the best way to protect the project from any further disruption caused by you two interacting. The fact that sooo many others here agree with this assessment speaks volumes, and you should spend more time considering your actions and attitude, instead of attacking others. ("Block log" indeed... have you ever heard the saying about "People in glass houses"...?) You should worry about your own, very active, very recent, block log, instead of mine. - ^theWOLFchild 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing this?

Do any admins feel like reviewing this to determine if an interaction ban should be enacted as requested? I'd rather not see another meaningful discussion be archived prematurely. Calidum ¤ 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great if someone could help out. Its been going for about a week and a half now, and discussion has slowed down to a crawl. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone at all? Calidum ¤ 21:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Making sure this doesn't auto-archive again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: block for MaranoFan

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

---

Suggested by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who stated that MF's "behaviour even here has been less than collegial at times". MaranoFan's canvassing of other editors and lack of evidence supporting a reason for an IBAN between them and Winkelvi calls for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions - not to mention the uncivil behaviour over on my talk page, which MF has stated was directed at me simply because I wanted to archive an escalating thread: Here and here. Posting now to avoid edit conflicting - will edit this post as time goes on. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as co-proposer, if that is a word. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Marano's actions don't especially seem worse than any of the other 3-4 editors involved in this. Unless we're doling out blocks to everyone involved and meddling in all of this, this is not a good proposal. (An iban solves this issue better.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sergecross. An interaction ban would solve pretty much everything, I would hope. Of course, if the ban fails to gain consensus and shenanigans continue - yes, blocks (for multiple editors) would likely be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. MF has done nothing to warrant a block. She was provoked by some comments made about her, but "gossip" does not justify what she is asking. That said, asking for something you're not entitled to doesn't give rise to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion is about an IBAN for WV and MF. That's it. If anything grows out out of this discussion then an IBAN for WV and MF is what is needed.--ML (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - A block is not justified and would only address (roughly) half of the problem.- MrX 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As MrX notes, this would solve only part of the problem (though I reckon one-fourth, not one-half). Calidum ¤ 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zero justification. MaranoFan is a good-faith editor who has been trying to do their best. This is a partisan proposal. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I had absolutely nothing to do with this proposal, and Ches is no one's meat-puppet. Please stop with the nasty, hateful personal attacks and unfounded allegations against other editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm not here to represent anybody else's views. I have my own, and this is essentially my proposal (two other editors had agreed with it beforehand, neither of whom were Winkelvi). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I would support based on the the reasons given. There is nothing good-faith about MF, but I will agree that she has been trying her best (at being disruptive, rude and disrespectful). I don't think an IBAN would be sufficient as MF just can't help herself.  — Calvin999 09:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The whole notion of this discussion is laughable. Some admin please speedy archive this. Lolol.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You can't oppose (or support) a block on yourself. It's obvious that you wouldn't agree. You're not even taking this seriously and you are being disrespectful. Also, no admin will help you when you are calling them "some admin".  — Calvin999 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes you can. There are no restrictions on who can vote; I done the same thing with myself in the past. JAGUAR  16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Didn't I ask you to never communicate with me again. (Rhetorical; doesn't require an answer). 19:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Thats irrelevant, what you said is objectively wrong, and any number of people would have said the same thing if he hadn't. And even that's ignoring the insane odds against this poorly thought out proposal. You're only reinforcing the idea that you're probably amongst the group of 3-4 editors that can't stop with the petty bickering that inspired a call for an Iban in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
          • • It is relevant, shows you are an uninvolved editor. MF wants the IBAN too, so. Several editors here have said Oppose but have written that is is still a viable option to block MF. So it is more than 3-4 really.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification to block MaranoFan, so long as he agrees to keep his comments civil. Lack of evidence and canvassing, while not encouraged behavior, isn't a "blockable" offense to me - provided that he stops the canvassing when asked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose MF has done nothing to deserve this proposition of a block. Calvin on the other hand, well... JAGUAR  15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The feeling is reassuringly mutual, Jaguar. Please grow up and stop harassing me/mentioning me/talking about me. You're coming across like a child.  — Calvin999 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I was just pointing out the fact that anybody can vote in any debate, even if it's a block imposed on the intended user. I don't know how that's considered harassing. Believe me, I would be over the moon if somebody created a sub-thread "Proposed interaction ban between Calvin and Jaguar". JAGUAR  21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You are harassing me by making unnecessary comments. I already asked for an IBAN between us but nothing was done about it.  — Calvin999 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
        • What, me voting in this discussion is considered harassing? JAGUAR  10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since MF is a good-faith editor, a block for this user is a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose-My vote is probably not needed here, but I'll give it anyway. It is unfair to block only MaranoFan. Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

Hatting this before the childish back-and-forth continues. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MaranoFan, it would be within your best interest not to badger all the Oppose !voters. This will not help your case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) That is called making your case. In a court, you try to convince jury members who don't support you. Winkelvi is welcome to do so if he wishes.--MaranoFan (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This isn't a court case, MaranoFan. Re-adding subsection as an arbitrary break means something which isn't directly related to the previous discussion. I am not adding another !vote, and therefore it is required. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC) And this is bogging discussion down either further. I recommend deleting this and saving it for Marano's talk page if you truly need to continue. I don't even follow why you're advising Marano when you're actively against Marano's proposal anyways. Regardless, please take this elsewhere, its just taking away from the actual discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Good one, NE Ent. Thanks for the initial confusion, the good hearty laugh, commemorating the spirit of the day, and closing this nonsense. Best to you,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

See also: § Harassment getting worse

It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

[1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please look at this edit in particular [129] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [130]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [131]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [132] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[133]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [134] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.

You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [135] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [136]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [137] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [138] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.

And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.

As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[139]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)

But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [140]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[141] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.

I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [142] especially [143][144][145]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [146]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [147] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at YuHuw edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw is editing as an IP editor again. He is "answering" a question raised at Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's increasingly bizarre that someone who objects so vehemently to being called Kaz should then proceed to act exactly like... KAZ. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

A month ago I was blissfully unaware of Jytdog. Then he caused a car crash at the RepRap project article, which gave rise to two deeply unfavourable media reports on Wikipedia's practices [148][149] and this ANI thread. Today he's suggesting I need to get a "Moron Diploma".

Both of these show just the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with editors and their work dismissed as "Garbage content based on garbage sources".

I noticed this today at User talk:Wtshymanski#Edit war warning. As those with long memories will know, there is little love lost between Wtshymanski and myself, but I've always recognised that he knew his subject - a courtesy clearly not being extended by Jytdog here.

As is typical (and to some degree commendable) this began by Jytdog removing sources that he took issue with for being unreliable. The trouble is that he removed a whole section to do so, on the far-from-controversial claim that there are toxicity hazards to working with beryllium. He proceeded to 4RR edit war [150][151][152][153] to remove this. Much better editing would have been (if he dislikes these sources so much) to have found some other sources, from the vast numbers that are out there on this uncontroversial and widely described topic.

The main problem though is less what he did and more how he goes about it. Just take a look at the talk page comments, accusing Wtshymanski of edit-warring and my talk page (14 posts tonight!). See also WP:RSN#Documents uploaded to ScribD. This battlegrounding is just not acceptable here - other editors, even myself, just do not deserve this bile from Jytdog. This is far from a new problem either, ANIs passim. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Andy is angry at me and I hear that but he is so angry he is not thinking straight.

I removed one sentence (not a "whole section) from the lead that became a subject of dispute - here is the relevant diff where it is being restored by Wtshymansk. I know I am too harsh sometimes. What is completely unacceptable is Andy's behavior here. His comments here and here are inappropriate for an article Talk page. He is clearly more focused on me than on the actual sources and contents there, not dealing at all with the actual problems I raised on the Talk page.

As he acknowledges he was attracted to the article via the Talk page of Wtshymansk where I had left an left] a 3RR notice, which appears to be on his watchlist as he has commented there many times; as shortly after I left that comment he came to the article, which he had never edited before, and reverted me and then shortly after that responded to me at W's Talk page here. That is blatant HOUNDING and edit warring too, as there was already a section open at the Talk page for discussion.

As I did at W's talk page, I warned him again on his talk page not to turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEFIELD and not follow me around picking fights. It is good that he opened this ANI instead of continuing to do so.

About the "moron diploma" thing, as I noted on his talk page here his HOUNDING is frustrating me, and yes I let myself write something snarky. What I had written was if he accepts the one source from ScribD he should accept the other, but then I removed that (I disowned it - because it is clearly inflammatory and there is no point in going there) and my final comment was here. I removed it before he even reacted to it (I am guessing before he saw it). His inappropriate comments still stand.

And about the "two deeply unfavourable media reports" - you can read those yourselves. It is Andy's take that they are "deeply unfavourable". I think I represented WP pretty well in the 2nd one where i had a chance to speak.

Going forward I hope to have as little interaction with Andy Dingley as possible: I don't much like the way he evaluates sources nor the way he operates, screwing up articles pursuing me and distorting things in this ANI filing (bringing sources to RSN is "battleground" behavior? no way. It is true that his position is getting little support there - that happens sometimes). In any case I will expect the same from him, however this ANI comes out. I very much hope that his pursuit of me does not become a recurrent issue. I will not, and have not, pursued him.

I am not going to post further here and will accept whatever the community says. Again, I acknowledge I can be harsh but for Andy to follow me to an article and blindly revert, adding back crappy, OFFTOPIC content harms the encyclopedia and he should get dinged for that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (clarifying redaction made Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Does this look like "crappy, OFFTOPIC content" to anyone else? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the dif under dispute. Again you misrepresent things. Bah. here is where you added back in the crappy, OFFTOPIC content. and i should add crappy-because-badly sourced, and crappy-because-carrying-out-an-OFFTOPIC-dispute-in-the-citations content. Even so, in the dif you bring, you show that you added better sources (keeping the crappy ones, ack) but you drill yet deeper into the question being fought out in the citations of the original crappy content. This article is about a disease, and whether or not Beryllium was used in lighting fixtures has nothing at all to do with the topic. It is not clear to me that you are even aware what the topic is, so focused on your anger at me, are you. said yoda. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Possible trout in response to Jytdog's initial action(s), boomerang for the filer of this report as frivolous and pointy as well as his own obvious battleground behavior that escalated things needlessly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well hello again Wikelvi, fancy meeting you here! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Erm ... the RepRap article has had some very obvious problems, and Jytdog pointed them out. Whether you think the Motherboard piece was a good thing or a bad thing very much depends on your approach to content quality. I thought Jytdog did a very good job describing the problems Wikipedia articles like that often suffer from. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-03-23/In_the_media.) Andreas JN466 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

He can describe the problems without blanking 80% of an article. It's not what he does that's the problem it's how he does it. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with the constant abuse that is Jytdog's seemingly only way of communicating with other people. He is not the sole custodian of sacred knowledge, but that's how he seems to operate. Blanking the work of others because it's "Garbage content based on garbage sources" is both inaccurate and wholly disrespectful. Other editors do have something to contribute here, not just him.

Nor is the result of this a positive improvement in content. What's the point in stripping references that don't meet some arbitrary rule if the content is then simply wrong? The RepRap article said afterwards "the company behind RepRap folded a year ago", which was wrong on both counts and defamatory to the subject. The article on acute beryllium poisoning is badly confused over the two exposure routes for beryllium and why those two different compounds give rise to two clinically very different conditions. Jytdog is so busy steam-rollering his view of which sources must be deleted that he takes no time to actually understand the topic, and he drives away anyone else who does. This is not a positive outcome to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• For a complaint about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... WP:BATTLEGROUND-y. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• FFS. Guys, the content looks perfectly acceptable but it does not seem to me to belong in the lede, as it's distinctly niche. Please read WP:LAME, bury the hatchet and move on. We have enough trouble fighting off the nutters without taking lumps out of each other over things where reasonable people might differ. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is "differ" and there is "delete the lot, edit-war to keep doing it and abuse other editors in the process". Just look at his outright harassment of CaptainYuge over the RepRap page. Look at the shit list of editors he posted to that talk: page of editors that he had decided were unfit to edit there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment
  • Best case scenario: both users end this discussion and move on to more important things, and the discussion is closed with no further action.
  • Alternative scenario: one of the two users insist on WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by continuing this discussion, in which case I move that user be given a (short) block.
  • Worst case scenario: both users continue this pointless back-and-forth, in which case I suggest both be given a (short) block. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• just fyi, the focus on whether Be was used in lamps and when, has been pursued yet further at the article about this medical condition. The article was very bad (version before my edits) and I dramatically improved it, bring it in line with MEDMOS and MEDRS (version when i was done). This focus on a TRIVIAL and OFFTOPIC point of content seems to be driven by my participation at the article, so i have unwatched the article. That aspect of this is just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't improve the encyclopedia or the community; quite the opposite; I will leave it to others to maintain the article. That is just about the actual point of content in the article. I understand that Andy is upset with my behavior and of course that can continue to be discussed here. I just want the article content not to get warped as Andy pursues me. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You say " I have no desire to be in this discussion. " at Talk: as if that's a good thing. You're great at seagull management, but you refuse to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, not Jytdogpedia, you have to learn to work with other editors.

As to the issue of Be in fluorescent tubes, this is significant in the history of berylliosis firstly because it demonstrates the typical risk of berylliosis: this is an occupational condition, it's not naturally occurring. Secondly this is the exposure context where the hazard was first recognised, and hygiene measures taken to avoid its risk in the future. It belongs here, in any comprehensive or historical coverage of the condition.

This issue, and its discussion, is off-topic for an ANI thread but if you insist on treating it as an attack on other editors then it's going to get a response here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the comment by Alexbrn who aptly stated regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND problems with the filer of this report: "For a complaint about BATTLEGROUND behaviour, this filing does seem rather ... BATTLEGROUND-y." In addition, Winkelvi is correct by pointing out that WP:BOOMERANG could be applicable here regarding the filer for WP:POINT disruption. I've looked over the relevant article history and evidence presented above and agree with Jytdog that these comments DIFF 1 and DIFF 2 on the talk page are disruptive and harm the community's ability to improve the article. Jytdog should be commended for efforts to improve the site with regards to application of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, are you trying to redefine WP:INVOLVED here? You and Winkelvi are behind the most fatuous and obviously biased deletion I've seen at Commons in years: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz_MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility and tone. There's a thoroughly trivial deletion request at Commons that you started, I commented upon, and now you show up here just to cause trouble. Coincidence? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith by the filer are remarkable evidence of further WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, or at the very least, failure to recognize I've already commented in multiple threads on this ANI page in the past 24 hours about many different topics. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So tell us Cirt, just what did bring you to an article on this obscure medical condition? You're fooling no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruption by Andy Dingley

• Update: It looks like Jytdog has chosen to disengage himself from the article Berylliosis. ("unwatching")

Despite this, unfortunately it appears the filer of this ANI thread has continued the edit-warring, disruption, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. When Jytdog left, the filer picked right up edit-warring against a different editor. Some examples of recent disruption:

• 10:49, 31 March 2016‎ -- "restore section - there is no contradiction between these two"

• 15:07, 31 March 2016‎ -- "Restore with another ref"

• 23:52, 1 April 2016‎ -- "You've been told once already. Undid revision 713104471 by QuackGuru"

Unfortunately, this now appears to be an ongoing pattern of disruption against multiple editors by the ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• [Note: Jytdog has since [154] [155] continued to edit this page Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)]

Cirt, please do not remove this note for a third time. You are making a now false statement in defence of Jytdog, who has clearly not behaved as he promised to. To keep reinstating this claim, against an obvious edit history to the contrary, is to whitewash the behaviour of the subject of this ANI post. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, for not adding this comment in-between my above comment, as you wrongly did previously, twice, at DIFF 1 and again at DIFF 2. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Classic content dispute. Andy, please stop bringing these content disputes, front-loaded in your OPs with trumped-up unrelated drama, to ANI. This is strictly a content dispute, and resolvable on the article's talk page by discussion, consensus, DR, RFC, whatever it takes. I'm inclined to agree with others that a boomerang is possibly in order because it's the second time in a month or so that you've wasted ANI time on this sort of thing [156]. Softlavender (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Softlavender about WP:BOOMERANG here, especially after reading the close summary at the prior ANI thread cited by Softlavender, where admin Spike Wilbury closed it as: "Content dispute, primarily. ... These ridiculous threads where content disputes are spilling over into AN/I". These frivolous ANI thread filings by the current ANI filer are a waste of the community's patience and disruptive to the project. — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Hengistmate has been deliberately trolling and socking me for years, and has been repeatedly blocked as a result. That is not a "content dispute" and it was thoroughly deserving of ANI. Nor does it have any relation to Jytdog's behaviour here.

If you are complaining of me edit-warring here (despite Jytdog already being at 4RR), then you know where ANEW is.

Cirt, you are only here because of a bizarre deletion request you and Winkelvi are involved in at Commons and both of you saw this as a good opportunity to troll me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pure content dispute, no clear evidence of edit warring submitted by OP (edit: referring to Andy Dingley). In fact, the claim of "4RR" implies that Jytdog violated 3RR on some article. I don't see what article that is. As of the filing of this complaint, on Berylliosis, Jytdog had only performed 3 non-consecutive edits in the previous 24 hours, and one was not a revert as far as I can tell. The claim of edit warring seems spurious as well, or at least unproven. I concur that a boomerang sanction or admonishment should lie, not only for the (I'll assume unintentionally) misleading complaint, but also for the combative stream of responses in this thread. This is a massive waste of time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:I thought the term "edit warring" and "disruption" meant any type of edit warring, not only solely 3RR itself. Surely there is ongoing disruption at the article by the original ANI filer. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, where I said OP I was referring to Andy Dingley's OP in the top section. Perhaps I should have made my comment up there rather than down here. I've added a clarifier. Anyway, I agree that there's actually ongoing disruption at Berylliosis by Andy Dingley, as you've shown above Cirt. I think that taken with Andy's conduct in the original thread here, some sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And now that Andy has retroactively amended his initial posting to include diffs of a supposed "4RR edit war", we can see that there's a greater than 24 hour gap in the claimed reverts. While the term "4RR" is meaningless (there is no four revert rule), terms like that are almost exclusively used to refer to a violation of 3RR involving more reverts (actually 4RR shouldn't be used at all since a 3RR violation necessarily involves 4 reverts). Someone making four non-consecutive reverts in a 72 hour period hasn't violated 3RR. If Andy intends to prove that those four reverts add up to an edit war, I think we're going to need more than that. Worst case, Jytdog should be told to be careful not to violate 3RR, and that edit warring can be called in the absence of a 3RR violation. I'm more concerned with Andy Dingley's conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

When you complain over a lack of diffs, don't then call to block someone when they give you those diffs! 3RR/24 is a "bright line" for edit-warring. As any of ANEW will inform you though, this is not the only indication of edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't say 4RR when you don't intend to mean the person has violated 3RR, then. The second "R" in 3RR means "rule". When you say 4RR you're implying a rule was broken. I don't see it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley has now followed me to yet another article and his intent to WP:HOUND is clear - here is where he reverted me, and again restoring badly/unsourced sourced content (this time what was sourced, was sourced to Investopedia). I am now requesting a 48 hour block to prevent further disruption and a 1-way interaction ban for Andy with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Followed"? To an article I edited months ago? Don't flatter yourself.

There is no justification in using a valid complaint against a source to start blanking whole paragraphs as well, when they contain simply sourceable, uncontroversial content for which there are abundant other sources.

And what's your excuse for this edit? [157] Sheer carelessness. Which you insisted on doing twice, even when reverted by another editor. You are too blinkered by your desire to Right Great Wrongs to even pay attention to what you're doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have apparently become your "great wrong" to right. I believe you will be blocked and will face an i-ban for hounding me, but we will see. You are continually bringing unclean hands with your editing decisions here; your edits are clearly POINTy and about me, and not about high-quality content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're very good at assigning all sorts of motives to other editors. This was a question about your edits here. Why was your (seriously wrong) edit so important that you had to do it twice, over another editor? Have you even looked at what you did here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Angry or not, it is remarkable how often Jytdog is mentioned on this page due to battleground issues. To the point that he even had a ArbCom-case and a indefinite topic ban on his head... The Banner talk 00:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just like Andy Dingley has his "fans", I have mine. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Andy needs to be encouraged to work on something else. I think a short-term interaction ban will do that. If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term. I'm just not a fan of indef editing restrictions out the gate, and would rather not block a long-term editor when there's another way to convey the message to "Do something else". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A "one way" ban? Why? So that Jytdog can keep awarding me "Moron Diplomas"? So that he can describe adding needed sources as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content"? Or just so that he can keep describing other editors' work as "Garbage content based on garbage sources" and "demeaning to WP"? And this is all from "Mr Clean Hands"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog starts poking the beehive once a restriction is in place, then we can talk. If there's support for it instead, though, I could see a temp two-way interaction ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I can live with the try-a-short-term remedy approach. I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 week or 1 month one-way interaction ban: Agree with Mendaliv, especially "If he comes off it and goes right back to pestering Jytdog with spurious nonsense like this, we can talk about something longer term." This disturbing behavior pattern, now across multiple articles against Jytdog, has gone on long enough. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I just reverted this above mentioned edit by Jytdog. I have not scrutined the history of Jytdog nor read the whole discussion above nor looked at the Beryllium dispute, and I am pretty sure they were in good faith when they made the edit.... but if I should judge their contributions on the basis of this sole edit, I should conclude they are a vandal, or at best that they have not the competence to edit Wikipedia. They actually blindly removed TWICE all the categories, the Commons template, the "Pharmaceutical companies of the United States" navigation box (in which the relevant article was actually linked), the portal templates, the official website. They were removed with edit summaries saying they are spam while none of these are spam. The supposed (a couple of them seems ultimately acceptable to me) spammy external links had been already hidden using the <!-- --> template. Cavarrone 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix. Yes I didn't catch that my removal of the WP:ELNO-violating external links included the cats and navbox. Thanks for catching that. Another user removed those ELs after you reverted me. Again, my bad on the cat/navbox removals. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support 1 month one-way interaction ban per Medaliv and Cirt. Not much use in making it only 1 week at this point. And keeping open the possibility of revisiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? I haven't insinuated that Jytdog is a moron or garbage, as they have. I'm not the one making 4RR edits, or pushed repeated edits that another uninvolved editor has compared to a vandal or a CIR case.

Cirt is the one calling for an interaction ban, and they're (like Winkelvi) only popping up unannounced because I called them both out over a bogus deletion request at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The short answer is because you seem to be refusing to drop the stick here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Which stick is that? I've had a stream of abuse from Jytdog and I'm entitled to respond to it. Have I edited the Berylliosis article since? Have you seen my edits since with QuackGuru? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Tryptofish here, 1 month one-way interaction ban at this point is probably better than one week, could always revisit at a later point in time. Thank you, Tryptofish, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So what does bring you here, Cirt, if it's not your push to delete at Commons? I know Winkelvi already happened to be on the carpet at ANI over his behaviour in trying to delete the whole article. You're staying awfully quiet on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Already answered, above. I echo Tryptofish at this point, please drop the stick here. Thank you ever so much, — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Quoting scary ALLCAPS is no substitute for answering the question. Go on, why are you and Winkelvi here at all if it's not just simple retaliation against another editor who challenged your behaviour at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is retaliation. They were not involved until you disagreed with them concerning the Heidi Cruz picture above. They should just move along and let unbiased editors work out the issues with Jytdog. It is shameful the way that Admin Cirt is retaliating against your on the spot comments at Commons. Cirt is an admin and he should know better.--ML (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong. I'd already commented in multiple locations on this ANI page in numerous different threads before this one. — Cirt (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Andy you have stopped pursuing me out there in the 'pedia and I am grateful for that. And I have heard your concern here about my harshness. I have. If you would agree to let this go, this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that. I hope you will agree. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I must say that it's incredibly surprising how many WP:BATTLEGROUND complaints there are about Jytdog here. Almost every time I check this noticeboard, in fact. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 07:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • If one develops a bit of a reputation, or if others see a complaint, then it is certainly possible that they can just play "follow the leader." Smoke often indicates fire, but isn't really proof of it. Jytdog deals in a number of truly contentious topics, and as a result faces a lot of criticism. It isn't unreasonable to see someone who themselves is a frequent target of others to develop a bit of a battleground view if they see that others are to an extent engaged in battleground behavior toward them. Yeah, I've had some fairly strong disagreements with him myself, whether he remembers them or not, and I can see that maybe he is a bit too "quick on the trigger" once in a while. In at least some of the topics he edits in, several other editors don't get reported here, but taken to AE to be dealt with there, sometimes rather severely. That doesn't seem to be the case here, thankfully. Personally, I don't see a lot to be done here myself, other than maybe application of a WP:TROUT or smaller fish to one or more individuals, and hope that such a light reprimand might be found acceptable. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Further harassment by Jytdog using SPI

Far from disengaging or "this thread can just be closed or allowed to drift into the archive, and that will be that.", Jytdog has now proceeded to open a deliberately harassing SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

This is not a new tactic for Jytdog. He did it to CaptainYuge a few weeks ago. In that case he also refused to accept the decision of the SPI and continued to harrass and insult the presumed innocent Yuge: User talk:Jytdog#Final warning for edit warring Although in that same thread he says he wouldn't try it on me! Mind you, given his other statements of ":I am unwatching this article. I have no desire to be in this discussion." and " I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it." and their retrospective lack of accuracy, we can't place too much faith in any such statement.

Baseless accusations of socking with no other purpose are considered to be a form of harassment.

Just above, Mendaliv refers to the possibility of, "If Jytdog starts poking the beehive". I consider this beehive thoroughly poked. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Most certainly NOT "baseless accusations". Valid evidence presented by Jytdog at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. ---> Already led to one block on a sock account by admin JzG (talk · contribs). The evidence presented by Jytdog was compelling enough to lead admin JzG to block and in the block log note: "A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who.". Therefore, Jytdog was correct to file the sock investigation, as it was borne out by the admin action by JzG. Further investigation is needed. — Cirt (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog has suspicions about one editor, there are acceptable channels to deal with that. These do not involve raising baseless SPIs on other uninvolved editors, especially not those editors with whom Jytdog is already deeply WP:INVOLVED. False accusations of socking breach NPA and this is not the first time that Jytdog has used this method. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The accusations by Jytdog are valid and led to a block by JzG (talk · contribs). Therefore they were not baseless. WP:INVOLVED links to Wikipedia:Administrators. Jytdog is not an administrator, last time I checked. — Cirt (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The block was good because it was a block." Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you are using quotation marks here in a misleading manner. I never said that. — Cirt (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You said, literally, "Therefore". Implying that their baselessness was refuted because they had already been acted upon. This is an obvious logical fallacy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is reasonable to say that something which is acted upon is not baseless, unless one wishes to imply that the person acting upon it is acting perhaps irrationally. The question is whether Andy is reasonably the sockpuppet master here. I tend to very much doubt that is the case myself, but there are and/or have been cases of editors who seem to be working together which are all but indistinguishable in some cases from sockpuppets. The only way one can know whether an SPI concern is valid is through filing one, ultimately, and, while it might conceivably if done too frequently be seen as an abuse of that procedure, it is at best a very long stretch in at least my eyes to say that a single instance of filing an SPI which is found to be actionable in some way necessarily qualifies primarily as a personal attack on the person perhaps falsely named as the sockmaster. Jytdog can at times be a bit overenthusiastic in some areas, and it may be that in this case the party named is not the sockpuppeteer. But there are conceivably sockpuppets of meatpuppets, or other forms of off-wiki coordination (none of which I suspect here either). There are also, sometimes, simply, old troublemakers coming back at an unfortunate time. The request seems to have been a reasonable one, even if the individual named probably isn't the real sock master, and I can't criticize anyone for basically finding an obvious sock, even if they get the identity of the sockpuppeteer wrong. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter (talk · contribs), I agree that the SPI investigation was warranted, and it is certainly possible the case page name may be changed by the end of it, but there was at least one sock blocked by an admin so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: There was a sock blocked by an admin based on behavioral evidence. After the fact, technical evidence proved the account were unrelated. That block should've been overturned unless the account could be tied to a different master.--v/r - TP 19:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the block log note by JzG (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean, "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. A sock of someone, it doesn't matter much who."

For NOTHERE, that's a hell of a judgement to make for an editor who has made one article space edit, one to the talk: page and two to a user talk:. We can't get real vandals blocked in that time, let alone indeffed.

As a sock, then "it doesn't matter much who." is shorthand for "indef block from an unproven suspicion" (and in this case, a disproved suspicion). We have, or used to have, some policies that said admins couldn't make arbitrary blocks on their own whim, there had to be some process first. For socking it is SPI. In this case they were blocked during the SPI (Why? What was the urgency for an editor with only one article edit?) and an SPI that then cleared them of being the claimed sock. Yet you are still defending this indef block. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• just a quick note here; i was not happy filing that SPI and I hope it isn't Andy. As I noted in the filing, the behavior of the new account was just too weird. I'll note here is somebody at 62.255.240.157 (a library in the UK) stirring the pot: dif, dif, dif. The now-blocked Milligansuncle? This is all just weird but I clearly have a new hater. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI was just closed. I have a bad feeling about all this; the person editing from the library obviously understands how to avoid CU etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The SPI was closed. But half an hour later you're still insinuating that 62.255.240.157 is someone's sock (presumably mine!). You also seem to know that it's "a library in the UK", but how you might know such a thing is beyond me.

You did this over CaptainYuge too. Opening an SPI is one thing, but to continue to insinuate that someone is a sock and the SPI was just wrong not to notice this is harassment. It's also a very convenient reversal of your position over the block of Milligansuncle: when your enemies are blocked arbitrarily, that's "proof". When an SPI concludes against socking though, that's because the SPI must have been wrong, compared to your magic library finding powers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The block of Milligansuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was based primarily on [158] taken in the context of the totality of the user's edits. I don't give a damn whose sock it is, it's not a new user and definitely not here to help. That kind of JAQing off we can do without. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone reading the IP's talk page will read that it is a library. And WHOIS says Reading Borough Council (Library Project). Doug Weller talk 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If the RIPE is correct, then maybe. The talk page comment is 7 years old though. Looking at the route, it looks (IMHO) much more like a general Virgin retail ISP for South Yorkshire. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, when did you stop beating your wife? Your comments here, "An SPI itself is just an investigation; a question." show that you still, even after this, have no understanding of SPI. As the edit notice on the SPI page itself states, "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." This is not merely a "question", an SPI is a strong insinuation that someone is guilty of an offence with a summary ban. You do not throw such things around lightly. You certainly do not do them in the middle of an ANI thread where the subject of your accusation has shown evidence of your abusive and harassing behaviour.

Why, in all this, do you feel the need to apologise to Conzar, but not me? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Conzar is new to WP and doesn't understand how things work here, and if you read what i actually wrote to them, you will see that i didn't apologize. I explained. You are more experienced and usually sane; if you look at the evidence I presented at the SPI and especially the way I presented it, you will see how strange the behavior of the account has been, and how it weirdly pointed to you. And you will see neither glee nor anger in my filing, but puzzlement seeking answers. It is SPI and not SPA ( as in "accusation"). You call it "fatuous" below and cite the instructions above. You have been around long enough to know that a CU would not have been done at SPI if I hadn't brought enough evidence to justify that; I did and it was. You are so angry that you are warping things left and right, and that isn't helping you convince anyone and you put yourself at risk for community action the more you keep pushing this way. You are on a warpath and you should get off it, Andy. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to add here that when i wrote the SPI I considered writing: "it may be that this is a really sophisticated sock that wanted me to believe it was Andy (the edit at Calvert's Engine being just a bit too blatantly perfect a "tell") and who ever it is may laugh their asses off after i post this, and will surely laugh harder at how angry it will make Andy, especially if the sockmaster turns out not to be Andy (which would not surprise me)." I didn't write that because it is too conspiratorial sounding and i really wanted the CU done, but it is seeming less unlikely now, especially given the behavior of the 65 IP address subsequent to the SPI filing, which just stirred the pot yet further. anyway, that is the "pot-stirring set-up" theory behind that sock ...Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, DO NOT describe other editors - any other editors - as "usually sane", with the obvious implication that they're currently insane.

I put myself at risk of community action? When did I describe you as a moron? When did I file an SPI against you? Especially not one so unconvincing that you describe it yourself as "strange" and "weird".

Stop these attacks. You have gone on long enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Andy I wish you would calm yourself. I said above that I don't want to interact with you, and I don't. You have asked me direct questions twice now. I answered the first, and I will answer the second, and then no more. The SPI had enough evidence that a CU was performed. I didn't file the SPI gleefully nor angrily. I didn't distort anything. And I didn't actually call you a moron and even after I wrote that you should accept the "moron certificate" (as a valid source) in the same way you accepted the other as a valid source, i removed that and acknowledged it was inflammatory, and you keep writing as though I am defending it or even left it in place. I'm not.

You are not acting rationally here; you are distorting and attacking and attacking - like just in this exchange, describing an SPI that was solid enough to get a CU as "fatuous" or as somehow invalid, and saying that i outright called you a "moron" or "garbage".

On top of that, you keep pushing for ... something... and lashing out, but whatever it is that you want is not happening. The only sanctions under discussion have been a one-way iban on you, and possibly a mutual one. That's it.

As I have said before, it doesn't seem that my interacting with you is productive at all - so I will go back to trying to avoid you.

I'll end by repeating what I wrote above; the best thing all around would just be to let his go. I do understand your original objection. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've read the SPI, and although it looks like most or all of the combatants are physically separated from one another, it also looks like there are an awful lot of people in diverse places who are looking to hound Jytdog. With respect to the ANI discussion here, it sure looks to me like an interaction ban is overdue. I'm not sure whether it should be one-way, per the subsection above, or two-way. But I think the goal here needs to be to get as much disengagement as we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for any sort of ban on him, I just want him to stop filing fatuous SPIs against me. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• further to the pot-stirring theory, this SPI was filed claiming that Cirt and I are one person based on this thread. The filer of that is apparently watching this with some glee. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • About the filer of that SPI: I looked at the SPI, and there is something that I would like admins to take a second look at there. After the SPI was closed with no action (and, indeed, it is patently ridiculous), but before it was archived, another editor posted a note there, saying that the filer is a sock of another account, that has been indeffed for other instances of socking, but there is no explanation of the connection in this case. (Not related in any way to Andy, please let me make clear.) I don't know what to make of that, but given the clearly disruptive intention of the filing, it seems likely that something is going on there, and it merits a second look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Onthost

Per Tryptofish above (and others) I have reviewed the edit history of Onthost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked the account as a disruptive alternate account. I think some people have suspicions as to the master account, I don't think we need to go into that because the pattern of edits after a six year break is pretty clearly not the work of an editor acting in good faith, and is quite likely someone evading a block. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So we have this and this. What is accurate in that, who knows. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is wikistalking me.

James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:WIKISTALKing me to articles simply to WP:WIKIHOUND my work. This is because we were in a disagreement over his instance on keeping white supremacist literature as sources for white pride against consensus [159]. He has never shown any interest in exoplanets or astronomy until this point so it is clear what he is doing by !voting on deletion discussions and no others. [160], [161]

jps (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: It's technically inaccurate to say he is stalking you "to articles", as since March 28 he has only edited two articles, Michelle Fields and Kamen Rider × Super Sentai: Super Hero Taisen, neither of which were ever edited by you (I was analyzing your claim from the top down, so this was frustrating for me when I looked at JJL's contribs and didn't see it). I think a much stronger argument, given JJL's editing history (he's hardly shown any interest in anything so far) would be the timing.

That said, this is super-dodgy behaviour. JJL is essentially a new user (account created last April, but only started editing a month ago...), so I say block for 24 hours, with a warning that following users you disagree with is a form of WP:HARASSMENT and is not tolerated, and if it continues longer blocks will be forthcoming (2nd offense one week, 3rd offense indefinite).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You demand (you use the word "say" rather than "suggest") a block, and as reasoning link to an advice page, a page that actually gives you no support for this demanded block. The act of following users you disagree with is not a form of harassment as defined in the page you linked. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". In what way is work by jps being confronted or inhibited? In addition, in what way do any edits by James J. Lambden involve "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior"? These things are required to be present before a block can be imposed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about inappropriate use of the lingo. It just feels really yucky when that happens. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And now this. jps (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is an attempt to misrepresent a content dispute. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And how did you learn of this particular content dispute? jps (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• jps, I'd like to examine this report but it would be easier if it was clearer. Are you suggesting the IP in your last diff, 166.171.187.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is James Lambden logged out? How can you tell? I fully agree it's some established user evading scrutiny in order to stalk and harass you, but why JL in particular? Any special style or contextual similarities? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

I have reason to believe that there is a group of people monitoring my activities on Wikipedia and I think that the IP matches this kind of unasked-for monitoring. I have come to decide that it may be best to discuss this more off-wiki, so if you are interested in more ideas with regards to this matter, please send me an e-mail. Sorry about this. jps (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin It may be of relevance that Jps has very recently raised a similar accusation of wiki-stalking on this noticeboard[162] which has now been closed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of misogyny

During two separate AfDs, Nfitz (talk · contribs) has accused editors of supporting an official Wikipedia notabilty guideline (WP:NFOOTY) of being misogynists.[163][164] He has been asked to withdraw the personal attack twice,[165][166] but is trying to claim that it is not one.[167] and wikilawyering to claim he has not accused any individual editor.[168]. Could this be dealt with please. Cheers, Number 57 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. I pointed out a policy I believe to be misogynistic - that I too have been supporting in the past. I didn't make any personal attacks - especially as I included myself in the misogynistic practice we need to fix. When User:Number 57 questioned what I'd said, I clearly pointed out to him that I wasn't referring to any individual. It's a shame that some editors are far more interested in choosing to be offended and their constant wiki-lawyering and red-taping rather than improving the project. I'd like User:Number 57 to apologize for his personal attack against me. I'm sorry if User:Number 57 misinterpreted my statement. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was very clear from the original, pointed comments that the attack was aimed at certain editors. If anyone had any illusions as to the meaning, they were followed up with "I really hadn't expected anyone to support misogyny in this day and age". The attempt at backpeddalling is not going to fool anyone (I hope). As for the request for an apology... Number 57 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did not aim the attack at certain editors. I aimed it at the entire project - myself included. To suggest otherwise is a violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia - and User:Number 57 needs to apologize for violating WP:AGF. If they were not sure, they could have sought clarification - and I'd already clarified that I had not aimed my comment at any individuals before User:Number 57 came here; by ignoring my clarification that I had not targeted any individuals, has very clearly to violate WP:AGF. Could this be dealt with please? Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You clearly stated in the edits that those who defend the guidelines are misogynists. I understand that in some situations we get a little hot under the collar and sometimes speak/type without thinking things through. But yeah, you did write that. Irrespective of whether or not you actually named anyone you cast a rather unpleasant aspersion on those who disagree with your take on this guideline. At the very least that is a breach of WP:AGF. I suggest that you strike the comment and make an appropriate expression of regret over the unfortunate choice of words. Let's all try to act like adults and not drag this out unnecessarily or make more of it than is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I simply meant that anyone who ignores the WP:BIAS and mysogyny issues would be misogynists. As I'd only just raised them, no one had yet defended the issues I'd raised, there could have been no individual I was referring to. I HAD already clarified that I wasn't targetting an individual with my comments - however User:Number 57 chose to ignore that, and still take offence, where none was meant. Then User:Number 57 chose to violate WP:AGF. This is a far greater transgression in my mind, and User:Number 57 needs to apologize or face the consequences. This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal attack and incivil. Nfitz, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It aggregates information from secondary and primary sources and attempts to give them due weight. If those sources are biased, Wikipedia will be as well. Similarly, if a system or institution has systemic bias in its outcomes for something like fame, Wikipedia will reflect that bias as well because notability is based on that systemically biased institution (e.g., Oscars). It's unfortunate, but that's how encyclopedias and tertiary sources like textbooks work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be a personal attack, if I wasn't making a personal attack. Perhaps I worded it badly. I apologize for wording it badly. I find it quite insulting that other people are telling me what I was saying and thinking, when I clarified my comments BEFORE it came to ANI. As for Wikipedia being Tertiary - we are discussing policy here, not content. Our policy to not allow articles about female players unless their league is fully-professional, knowing full well there isn't the money in the sport to have fully-professional leagues WHEN WE DO ALLOW SEMI-PROFESSIONAL male leagues in standards for other male-dominated leagues (basketball, gridiron, ice hockey) is clear WP:BIAS. If we held the same standards for ANY league of ANY sport, then I'd agree with you. But we don't. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have struck the offending comment, despite making it very clear to User:Number 57 that they weren't aimed at anyone personally. Re-reading them again, it was poorly worded, and I apologize for that. However, as I'd made it very clear that it wasn't personal, before they decided to bring this here, clearly violating WP:AGF and I await their apology for this. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is interesting stuff. Nfitz's apology is very welcome, but their original comments--the content if not the phrasing--is even more welcome. Even The Rambling Man agreed that there was bias in our guidelines. This is an opportunity to do something useful; if any of Nfitz's words crossed the line (and I think it was very mild) I think they speak to the frustration that is frequently felt when an underrepresented group is the subject of discussion.

  The bottomline is this, and Number 57 may not like it: "the guidelines is the guidelines" is not some sort of secret recipe that somehow eliminates bias. In fact, I am pretty damn sure that the guidelines are based on things that are inherently biased (media coverage, for instance; if I read my local paper and nothing but, cycling wouldn't be a sport and soccer was just for girls), like professional leagues and stuff like that (it's the "professional" part: of course women are underpaid, and this finds an expression in what's professional and what's not--just ask the US women's soccer team, with three World Cups and four Olympic titles, IIRC). Number 57 and others should seize this opportunity to investigate how our guidelines might be biased, and editors (including me) sometimes cannot see the beam in their own eyes. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Drmies: Football is a spectator sport, and this is what makes the players notable (with the exception of international footballers, all of whom we deem notable regardless of their professional status). A league's professional status is a direct consequence of the interest in that league, and the status of some leagues as semi-professional is a result of a lack of sufficient interest in those leagues, which is an indicator that the players in those leagues are not notable. Number 57 11:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple, or that "interest" is so easily defined. I think FOOTY needs tweaking and The Rambling Man was right; the highest level in the country should trump the mere "fully professional" requirement. Your response in the Brogan Hay AfD doesn't even regard the GNG which, in my opinion and that of others, is met. (Giant Snowman disagrees, but that's another discussion.) Choosing FOOTY over GNG suggests bias, yes, if FOOTY is biased--which seems to be the opinion of a couple of participants in that AfD. But this is for a different forum than ANI, I realize that. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: The reason we have avoided going down the top level route for notability is primarily because it would allow articles on thousands of non-notable male players playing in countries where football is not a professional sport (e.g. Ireland and other small countries in Europe). Number 57 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
        • While the manner in which this issue was raised was a little too gung-ho, I think what has been criticised is really worth looking into. The guideline for fully-professional leagues is helpful in most cases – however with gender as a factor it becomes a bit more difficult to apply as a general rule of interest/notability. Assigning the same criteria to both male and female players doesn’t take into account gender discrimination – as User:Drmies mentioned, women are in many cases are simply paid less; this doesn’t necessarily correlate with less interest for the sport. The pitfalls of amending notability criteria are clear, yet I think there may be ways to side-step potential problems. Perhaps for countries where there is notable football enthusiasm (where the men's league(s) are fully-professional) there could be criteria to allow for the top-tier women's league - This could aid in avoiding the problem User:Number 57 raised regarding non-notable male players. In any case, it would be good to start a constructive debate on this issue and discuss possible amendments. BoroFan89 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
          • • The level of interest in the sport in terms of playing is not relevant; the level of interest in terms of it being a spectator sport (which is what makes players notable) is. What you seem to be suggesting is that Wikipedia adopts some form of positive discrimination. Number 57 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
              • I'm a bit confused by what you're saying - I never linked the level of interest with playing? I do believe that semi-pro women's football cannot be compared with semi-pro men's football - due to the reasons given above, and the notability criteria should consider this. BoroFan89 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a good opportunity to fix WP:NFOOTY to make sure it's written in a way that does not discriminate against women in football. See Wikipedia:Writing about women:

Women comprise between 8.5 and 16.1 percent of editors on the English Wikipedia.[1] This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies in turn determine which articles about women can be hosted, and frame many of the ways in which they are written.

LauraHale has worked hard to promote women in sport. She hasn't edited here since January, but I'm pinging her anyway in case she has thoughts about how to change the guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• For ice hockey (WP:NHOCKEY), we allow "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant." That's the situation with Brogan Hay. As I understand it, she's playing at the highest level at which she can play in Scotland, but there is no professional level for women there. So we ought to add that caveat to WP:NFOOTY. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: My question would be how would this be applied across football in general? I presume you are not suggesting creating a bias towards women's articles by imposing a lower level of notability based solely on gender? Are you suggesting that NFOOTY be amended to state that all players in a given country's top league are presumed notable?

The problem with that would be the vast number of non-notable male footballers who would suddenly fit this criterion, not to mention non-notable female footballers, all of whom play in very minor leagues which attract very little attention.

If the desire is to see more articles on women, then I would suggest editors start on the large number of missing articles for women who have played senior international football, who pass NFOOTY as is but do currently have an article and thereby begin to solve this problem top down not bottom up. And let's not get started on the poor state of articles on women's football clubs, national teams and competitions.

If the desire is to see more articles on women in a given league, i.e. Scotland in this instance, surely GNG is the best root to follow. Again this solves the problem from a top down pov by ensuring that articles are created on the most notable female footballers first before there is any need to alter a subject specific guideline.

I am more than happy to get in a discussion on how to make football articles more inclusive, but I am adamant that any changes made must be applicable to all footballers, not simply female footballers and that the risk of a flood of hitherto non-notable players of either gender may suddenly appear.

However, I would be interested to see, particularly if a wider audience beyond the usual WP:FOOTY editors can be engaged, if a consensus can be reached that players from a country's top division are deemed notable regardless of gender. That somewhat blunt approach seems to me to be the only way to resolve this issue in a way that provides clarity on notability to even the most inexperienced of editors and allows the inclusion of more articles on female footballers without creating a positive bias. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix, I'm not sure what you mean by applying any new suggestion across football in general. My suggestion is that WP:NFOOTY follow WP:NHOCKEY, and add a clause that says something like:

"Played one or more games in an amateur league that is the highest level of competition available because of the lack of a professional league."

Alternatively, NFOOTY could follow WP:NRU (for Rugby Union), which cites women, and say something like:

"Or has played one or more games at the highest level of competition available in women's football in her country."

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I see other sections on that page cite women; e.g. WP:NBASKETBALL (though the Women's National Basketball Association is professional); WP:NBOX (mentions women and amateur boxers); and WP:NCYCLING. It should be easy enough to add a sentence to NFOOTY that accommodates what happens in the women's game. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Firstly, I think it should be pointed out that we do not allow male players articles in cases where the top divisions in their countries are semi-pro or amateur and dozens of articles on such players are deleted every year without any such uproar. Secondly, what needs considering here is what makes footballers notable. Our guidelines give two methods for footballers to gain assumed notability; the first is common to most sports, i.e. representing their country (playing international football). The second is related to football's status as a spectator sport – and this is something that not all sports get, as if there is not much interest in many sport from a spectator point of view, this in turn means the players are not deemed notable. However, obviously not all footballers are notable, as not all footballers play in leagues where there is sufficient spectator interest (I myself have played in a league where we used to get 10-20 people watching our games). So, we have to determine which leagues do make their players notable by virtue of playing in them. The best indicator of whether there is interest in a league in terms of it being a spectator sport is professional status; if a league cannot attract sufficient crowds or sponsorship, then this suggests there is not that much interest in it, and subsequently, that the players are not notable. Being a top division does not automatically make a league's players notable if there is little interest in that league in the country in question, and this rule is applied equally to both men's and women's football. If we had separate rules for men's and women's football, this would effectively be positive discrimination, which I would hope we all agree that this is not what Wikipedia is for.

Also, and I'm sure this was not your intention, citing the rugby union example is not really a good idea because I would say it is actually quite biased against women. WP:NRU allows an article on any male player to play in the world cup, but a female player has to be in a team that reaches the semi finals to qualify. Number 57 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have been involved with Nfitz over AfD discussions on football-related articles, especially on players from Myanmar, and we were frustrated that though we knew that many of these players were playing in their country's top league, due to the lack of reliable sources (owing to simply the lack of documented media coverage of football events in Myanmar. Just google..) we were unable to prove their notability as per NFOOTY, which resulted in the deletion of some of the articles.

Now, to my point: I think that Nfitz made an error in his original statements, which were the original subject of this discussion; what Nfitz essentially said in his original comments (which were linked by Number 57 and I'm not going to re-quote them) is basically: "If you support the policy, you are a misogynist, if you do not support the policy, you are not a misogynist". This is clearly a false dichotomy as effectively, it means that if I happen to support the policy, that makes me invariably a misogynist, and you can only be one or the other. That's not true of course, as just because I support the policy, it doesn't automatically make me a misogynist.

I assume that because of this error, that Nfitz is seen by extension to be calling people misogynists if they happened to support the policy, but here's the thing: he is not calling anyone misogynists in particular; by Nfitz making his statement verbatim, there is an element of if - "If you support, you will be...; if you do not support, you will be...". On that note, I do not believe that Nfitz has not made any personal attack on any particular individual or groups of individuals. Granted that his comments were insensitive and logically incorrect in the sense that he was trying to make others invariably make one choice over the other (false dichotomy), but other than these, I don't see any other wrong in his comments.

I'm not sure if it would help this discussion, but I'll state it anyway as a reminder to all of us, especially since Nfitz rightly said that we should be concerned with improving Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not censored. Oh and as a side point, I doubt Nfitz violated WP:NPOV, considering he was highlighting a fundamental flaw in policy, one which unfortunately has a gender element to it. Just stating it too, if it pops up in this discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also, as yet another side point, I don't think Number 57 should be required to apologise either; to me this entire discussion has been a whole big misunderstanding of both sides since the beginning. I also want to praise Drmies for coming into this discussion with a voice of reason that spanned both sides. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I wouldn't go so far as to say misogyny. But there definitely seems to be a double standard against women going on in this case study, unfortunately. That represents our Wikipedia community quite poorly to our readers. — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• A point on the substantive issue of non-professional top national leagues. I have not been completely happy with this, in a number of cases players who have played for a large country in major sports, in a major international competition, have had their articles deleted. In these cases, if GNG is not met, a redirect to a team page, with sections on each player, would be worthwhile. There are cases where player redirects have been deleted because the player no longer plays for the team. What we have is a combination of systemic bias and recentism. Clearly there is a basis for saying that professional leagues are more notable, that players representing larger (and hence better funded) nations are likley to be more notable, and that more recent players, especially current players are going to be easier to reference.

But that doesn't mean we should abnegate all coverage, bearing in mind the difficulty of finding sources, we should build what significant coverage we can using reliable sources to populate team pages, and where necessary <sport> in <country> pages.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

• Still waiting for an apology from User:Number 57 for their clear violation of WP:AGF. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't get what you mean by violation of AGF. If you could quote an example that is not already in this ANI discussion, I would love to see it. Otherwise, seriously there is no need for an apology to you or to Number 57. As per the second part of my original reply above, this discussion was clearly the result of bad misunderstanding, and (fairly) hot heads on both sides. He thought you were calling others misogynist, and you have acknowledged that you could have worded it better. It was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Can our feelings not be so easily crushed by others? I think we should just dust ourselves off and move on from this ANI discussion that has clearly been a few days in and doesn't seem to be heading anywhere. What should really be done is to focus on the issues with WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY, and/or other article-related policies or guidelines, as highlighted by yourself (Nfitz) and other users. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution to the WP:NFOOTY issue would be to say that all players (male or female) from the top level league in a country are notable, unless it is a micro-nation (say less than 500,000 inhabitants*). This then avoids the what about Faroe Islands, etc. problem. Most good standard players from those countries will meet NFOOTY anyway by playing for the national team, which is relatively easier anyway. *I realise this is arbitrary, but I think it would be possible to reach a consensus on what defines a micro-nation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is the claim that it's misogynist of Wikipedia to reflect that football is a male-dominated sport. It's the world that is misogynist, not Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if we decide to make all top level league players notable it should count for all leagues that are a member of any of the six football confederations. I think the current "professional league" level is better, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

A person purported to be Ms. McMann left a lengthy message on my talk page. She took issue with a citation I added yesterday, and upon investigating further, I agree with her contention and removed the citation. However, she is also making legal threats against me and Wikipedia. This was the same tactic used in March in an attempt to remove the article from Wikipedia because she felt the conviction was unfair, despite pleading guilty to it. To the extent that herself and others who have engaged in sock to remove the article, or blanking on the citation, I seek administrator guidance on this matter.--Cahk (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I blocked the Ip for 1 year for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a Ban

The human behind this IP, who seems to be Charlene McMann, has been causing so much disruption about the article on that person, and is now trying to exercise a chilling effect, that I recommend a Site Ban on a person who is not a registered user, but is the person behind the IP, so that IP should be indefinitely blocked. (The IP appears to be static over at least six weeks, which is longer than most.) I realize that others will disagree with a formal ban for a person who is editing via IPs, but this is my opinion. I suggest that editors who disagree recommend an indef or a long block, or to disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• 73.9.140.124 is now blocked with an expiration time of 1 year for making legal threats. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the ban gets accepted it would supercede my block and would also apply to other IPs the person can use.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ah. Then support as being clearly disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Evidence suggests they'll just come back with a new IP and do the same again. So only option is to siteban them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, along with her husband and his sock drawer. I have nominated the article for AfD - though refactoring as an article about the defunct charity she scammed might be better. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - They'd only be back under a new one and then a new one etc etc so ban the lot of 'em, Maybe the article should be kept so we can show the encyclopedia how pathetic and sad some people are. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, and I think if we end up blocking them past this point to both leave a message to only contact Foundation council and let the Foundation know. Censorious thuggery tends to stand mute in the midst of lawyering up; it's the same principle patent trolling works on. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I am okay if the community consensus is to remove the article. However, it is clear either the subject, or someone related to the subject is actively attempting to damage control stemming from the court processes. As noted in the 2nd AfD process and the comments here - it appears someone related to the subject created the article in the first place to promote her work, and now that negative information is out, they want the article taken down. The only (more neutral) solution appears to be a ban.--Cahk (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support Per Joseph2302 Jdcomix (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support I created the 2nd AFD on the article, namely on the fact that I felt that the subject was not notable enough for inclusion, and agree with Guy that the information on the page could be turned into a page about the charity. The constant legal threats and attempted Wiki-lawyering is enough for me to support a ban on the IP and its socks (including the subject's husband). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Update Upon seeing this: [169], this only furthers my support for a ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As only indication from this we have is that the person has no interest in anything but threatening the project and its editors. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the IP did not make a legal threat, IPs are just numbers. The person behind the IP made the threat, and that person is de facto banned anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I don't often vote for such comprehensive bans but this is not your typical case of a wayward editor. McMann contributed to her own biographical article but once documented information about a criminal conviction was included in the article, one that she pleaded guilty to, she wanted the article removed. She even claimed to be a friend of McMann who said the article was causing her friend to become suicidal and initially a lot of editors were extremely sympathetic until they realized it was likely McMann herself who was posting. Now, with the threats, I agree that she should be kept from editing on the project. Whether or not the article is kept or rewritten is another matter but McMann should not be threatening or trying to make editors feel guilt that they are responsible if her health worsens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar with incidents in March, I'll link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing/Archive for further reading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated. User seems to be willing to keep coming back until they get what they want, which is disruptive. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• 'Support per Liz. This is a SNOW and is just awaiting closing and enactment. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support for all the above reasons. It is most unfortunate that Ms. McMann chose to commit a series of felonious actions which have been more than satisfactorily cited in the media IMO. The first AfD way back when ought to have ended it. I would think the subject cannot be less notable since her arrest, conviction and sentencing. (EDIT) Predictably, a new sockpuppet appears to have surfaced as well. See here Time to close this I believe. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed it myself. Not good. So why is McCann still being allowed to edit? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mindimoo just shot herself in the foot and is now confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete her article: Far from the first time someone begged and sweat and scraped to get a wikipedia article, and then when the only possibility of notability comes from a criminal conviction, they want it deleted. The sad story of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) has happened again. It should be deleted anyway.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deleting (or keep) her article has nothing to do with the proposal at hand?--Cahk (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Robert McClenon and Liz. The legal threats and sock puppetry far outweighs any positive contributions the user has made. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Liz, joining the dogpile. My own input will make no difference, but I have no tolerance for those attempting to use chilling effects and editor-shaming to whitewash an article for personal gain. I mean, take a look at this wall of text, for example. GAB^Hello! 18:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I've left a message on my talk page for Ms. Mcmann.--Cahk (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comments

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

---

Hi, I want to remove my comments from the talk pages ( History of Islam, History of Iran, Achaemenid empire, Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire). Because my English is not very good, and I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I am going to retire from Wikipedia once and for all. Can you allow me to do this? Please come to my talk page. Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you're removing a lot more than just your comments. Generally you aren't allowed to just delete entire threads containing other editor's responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful if someone kindly archived away any of the relevant talk page threads that have not been active for some time. MPS1992 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks like the archival setup is broken on those three talk pages. I fixed Talk:History of Islam... I think. Someone might want to look at the other ones. It looks like the threads this editor is concerned about should be archived anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I want to remove all my comments from the talk pages. My comments are not very necessary for the articles. My maps are not going to be accepted in the articles. If I remove the comments from the talk pages will it really do any harm to the articles? I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Let me retire with all the comments. Please consider this thing a bit.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If we just removed your comments, then people's responses don't make sense. It would only make sense if you removed everything, which isn't normally allowed. If there were some compelling reason other than your belief they don't add much and desire to quit Wikipedia, then that might be something different. It is considered helpful to keep old discussions, even of ideas that are rejected, so people who come later with the same idea can know it has been proposed before, and the likely arguments they will face. As I said, our usual rule is to keep these old discussions unless there's some particular reason to remove them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's stil happening. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arman ad60: Please stop deleting discussions from talk pages. If you continue to refactor or remove other editors' talk page comments you may be blocked from editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• He's doing it again: See these edits. One edit did alter someone else's comment, but that wasn't what bothered me so much. What bugs me is he's changing a lot of the wording of his own comments, which were in perfectly acceptable English to begin with, in ways that I can't be sure it alters the substance of the comment... where other editors have already responded. I reverted the three edits. I'm not sure what's going on here, Arman ad60, but I strongly advise you to stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Block needed: He just removed more talk page comments, including posts by others, that comprised a portion of a talk page thread. And here too. This and the diffs I linked above make twice three times since he received a final warning that he's fooled around with talk page comments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • He's still making substantive changes to his talk page comments, despite being pointed to WP:REDACT. Some admin intervention would be helpful here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No you are not right. I am just trying to improve my English. I have changed just few sentences. And it hasn't changed the meaning of the comments. I have every right to do so. Can't I even correct my English?Arman ad60 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arman ad60. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Global IP rangeblock

I just got caught in a global IP rangeblock made by @Masti: over on Meta. The message I got telling me about this (when trying to rollback anti-Semitic vandalism on the RefDesk) and then when I tried to post an unblock request on my talkpage was "Permission error

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Cross-wiki vandalism: + leaky colo.

Start of block: 19:05, 6 April 2016
Expiration of block: 19:05, 6 October 2016

You can contact Masti to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 188.29.164.122, and the blocked range is 188.29.164.0/23. Please include all above details in any queries you make."

Now, firstly it is a bit rich to leave established editors with no way to request an unblock on their home wiki, secondly it is even richer to block established users with no effort to communicate with them directly, and thirdly, the IP range is for mobile services from 3, one of the major UK mobile providers, so is likely to affect many good-faith users. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the merits of the block or its validity, a /23 block only covers 512 IP addresses, and is not likely to affect many people. It may be that you just got unlucky with this one. /23 is very targeted, and should not affect most (or even many) of that network's mobile providers. That does not say that the block is justified, or that you don't have a complaint, but rather that the portion of your complaint that it affects an entire ISP, or even that it affects a large number of addresses, isn't true. ---Jayron32 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it affected an entire ISP, or a large number of addresses (I wouldn't pretend to have the faintest idea how many addresses it did affect). I did say it's likely to affect a large number of people, as every time someone comes online they are likely to have a different address, and so, over 6 months it is likely to affect many. Even if it could be guaranteed to "only" affect 512 people, to leave them without any on-wiki way of appealing is unacceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dropped a notification on Masti's TP for you. A ping is not considered sufficient notification due to the notorious way pings can fail. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I change the block to unregistered users only. So You should be able to edit now. Sorry for the problems @DuncanHill: Masti (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am now global IP block exempt too. I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable! DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

However both the big red text at the top of the page and orange box you see when you edit do say "must notify them on their user talk page" so the reasons are largely moot unless it's a discussion over the reasons. Perhaps the point of confusion is the ""discussion about an editor" bit, but that's normally taken to mean if you discussion includes commentary on the editor, they should be notified. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And the notices have been there so long that they merge into the background. I also rather think they did not always specify talkpage. Masti was well aware that I was unhappy with the situation as I had emailed him via Meta, mentioning that this was my home wiki. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what it's said in the past, but it's been clear since pings were introduced that you have to notify editors via their talk page not via other methods like pings. This is a standard expected part of starting ANI threads and for several editors including me, it reflects negatively on any editor who fail to do so. (Not just because of the failure to do the minimum required by the big notice, but because a lot of the time when I see an editor hasn't notified, they're a new editor with a groundless complaint.) The only few exceptions are generally when the editor is blocked or banned or when there's an iban or request to stay away (but in that case it should be mentioned when starting the thread) and with IPs that change so much that it pointless (although it's normally wise to at least attempt to do so in thos case). Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But they have to actually try to edit while using the IP, so in reality it's not particularly likely to affect that many registered editors unless the IP range happens to be used by a some large company (since it's a mobile IP not very likely) or something (I wonder why such a small range was blocked and whether there's something to do with the assignment policy which means people only tend to get a small number in which case it could be certain editors would have gotten it a lot or it's very rare). While there are quite a few anonymous contributions from that range to en.wikipedia, non registered editors always run the risk they will be blocked if others misuse their IPs and a /23 isn't considered sufficiently small that it may be justified if there are problems. I see some mention of leaky colo which I presume means leaky colocation, so the number may be slightly higher but then again perhaps this leak colo falls in to the open proxy arena (like a webhost) so they aren't allow to edit from that anyway. (Blocking a whole countries proxyy tends to be the more controversial thing.) Note that ultimately if you have problems editing from an IP and that IP was blocked for good reason, you should be complaining to your ISP for failing to have decent abuse policies or failing to enforce them as you're I presume paying your ISP for service which they aren't able to provide. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to edit from an account, not as an IP. Apparently registered users also always run the risk that they will be blocked for the deeds of others and with no on-wiki appeal. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If I might interject, what are we hoping to accomplish here? Masti has converted the global block to anon only in response to DuncanHill's request. DH was granted global IPBE so this won't occur again. Furthermore, I removed the local block in less than 15 minutes from DH's email to me. (~00:29 UTC April 7) It sounds to me that things have been handled correctly and promptly. DH, if you are dissatisfied with Masti's block, that's an issue that you will have to raise on meta. Mike V • Talk 22:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I was dissatisfied with the impossibility of appealing a block made without notification! Now, I do have email enabled, so after the initial shock and confusion I was able to contact some likely looking admins, but anyone who does not is left with no method whatsoever of seeking any kind of help. And Mike, I never asked you to undermine Masti's block by removing it locally, I asked you to restore my IPBE here on en-wiki which you had earlier removed on en-wiki without telling me, and make it apply to all wikis so at the very least I could ask for help in a more conducive environment. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC) and edited DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess my comment wasn't as clear as I thought. I never meant you were editing without an account. What I said is that when using an IP range that has been misused by others, you always run the risk you're going to encounter problems, both on wikipedia and elsewhere because of this misuse. If this causes problems for you, it is indeed an issue between you and your ISP, because you are (unless it's a free service in which case it's probably tough luck) paying them for a service and they are failing to provide it because they are assigning you IPs and not properly controlling misuse of those IPs by their other customers. Whether you are using an account or not, you still have an IP, that's the way the internet works. Frankly, the circumstances allowed here on wikipedia and wikimedia projects in general are very generous. AFAIK it's basically unheard of for IP or ranges to be blocked from accessing wikipedia. IP or ranges are only ever blocked from editing and usually with great attempts made to ensure it's affecting as few people as possible and the block is needed. And even there, multiple avenues of appeals are usually provided and frequently great attempts will be made to assist people who weren't the primary targets of the blocks to continue editing. With a lot of other stuff, you're often SOL often with little avenue of appeal even if you weren't the target of the block or the block wasn't even needed or is excessively broad. And that's just stuff like forums, things like The Spamhaus Project tend to be even more onerous. I'm not saying we shouldn't be so generous, but rather you have to consider how the internet works. It does sound like a hardblock wasn't needed here, so there's a valid point of complaint there, but ultimately the primary fault lies with those misusing your ISP and next your ISP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing a global block locally wasn't undermining Masti's actions. If there's a global block in place that does not have a positive benefit to en.wiki, any administrator can adjust it. In my emails to you I informed you that only stewards can apply a global IPBE and provided you avenues to request one. (Remember, IPBE on en.wiki only applies to local en.wiki hard blocks.) The reason you weren't directly contacted about the block is because your IP address was blocked, not your account. The blocking steward was not aware that you were on the range. When a user is blocked, directly or editing on a hard blocked range, he or she can still edit his or her talk page unless talk page access is revoked. Looking at the block log shows that was not the case, so you should have been able to place an unblock request on meta. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Small comment to DuncanHill and Blackmane before this gets closed: "I had no idea that pings were notoriously unreliable!". They are reliable. If they are not working, you are doing something wrong, like not typing four tildes in the same post as your ping. See WP:PING. The reason Talk-page notification is necessary is that that makes it official and firmly recorded (for the user and for others) and highly visible (not ignorable). Plus, some people don't read notifications closely or immediately or read all of them or may only skim their notifications; some people get dozens of pings a day; there is also no way of fully knowing how urgent or important a ping is unless one actually visits the page in question; some people don't format pings correctly (misspell username, don't type four tildes, etc.); and there is also a very remote possibility that a few people may have mention-notifications turned off (although I've never heard of anyone who does). -- Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• User talk:Materialscientist says "I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry." This may be related to the second userbox on their user page, which says "This user believes that the meaning of life is to live a happy life." MPS1992 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As Softlavender says, one needs to remember to do the pings plus sigs together. Going back and adding in your sig or ping after the fact causes the ping to fail. If one makes a post but forgets to ping, make a new post. Best policy when using pings is to use the Show Preview to double check. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The range block seems to be because of disruptive editing on the Polish Wikipedia by an editor now in the UK. The same IP addresses don't have edits to other wikis and the articles don't exist in other languages. A global block seems unnecessary. Talk page access shouldn't be revoked; I assume this is a bug, but has it been reported? Can editors affected by these blocks place unblock requests on meta? How would this work for a user with no account there? Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK if you have an account on en you have an account on meta due to WP:SUL and since I think finalisation has finally happened, I don't think it's possible to not have an account on meta. (You could have stuff like talk page access revoked there I assume.)

Also is there a reason to think this is only because of the stuff on the Polish wikipedia? I looked in to this a few days ago and admit I didn't find anything else. There was some weird stuff at Pilates, Talk:Pilates and User talk:Alexbrn but I'm not totally sure it's vandalism and so since it didn't look to be the same editor it didn't seem to me it would justify a global block.

But my ability to check other wiki contribs was hampered by the fact there isn't (AFAIK) any easy tool to look at cross-wiki range contributions. I only looked at the contribs of the blocked range to a few projects and looked for comments to the blocking steward on meta, Pl and here. As such I didn't comment as I suspected there could easily be something I was missing.

Today when writing this it occured to me to check the cross wiki contribs of those three or four IPs who'd recently been editing here and on pl. This made me realise simple.wikipedia was one project I hadn't looked and there did seem to be some dodgy looking stuff there. And sure enough the IP range appears to be a regular vandal at simple.wikipedia. [170] [171]

Whether or not this is enough to justify a global block, I can't say (particularly since I still don't quite know what the leaky colo is about). But as said, even before I found the simple stuff I didn't see any reason to think it was solely because of the Polish stuff. If there is a way to do cross wiki range contrib check I presume you would have found the simple stuff so I do find it quite mystifying why you think it's only because of the Polish stuff.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued disruption from previously banned IP editor "Claudia"

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

IP editor 115.188.178.77, who calls herself/himself “Claudia” and loudly expresses regressive and occasionally racist views of Maori culture and New Zealand colonial history, has been blocked at least three times for disruptive editing and obnoxious behaviour, including under the IP address 122.62.226.243.in 2012[172], 2013 and 2014.

She continues to wage a crusade through talk pages against the highly respected New Zealand historian James Belich. Past tirades are here, here, here, an in the four threads archived at the Belich article talk page, here. Her renewed attack is at this talk page; she (again) cites the authors Pugsley and Richards in her derisive comments, though when challenged recently to produce the actual statements of those authors, she could not.[173] I deleted her last Belich comment on the grounds that it was an attack not relevant to the article; she restored it and added a further criticism of Belich: see Talk:Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)#No Personal attack on Belich.

Out of nowhere she has launched an attack on another respected historian [174]; she has also made claims about another historian's conclusions [175] which in that thread I quickly proved to be completely fabricated and wrong. This echoes her past attacks at historian Michael King, prior to her last 12-month block.

Her past behaviour has included faking citations (see this complaint); her recent efforts have included adding a fictionalised “quote” within an article which was nothing more than a stab in the dark of something she had once read (see this and this thread.) Despite her past blocks her edits tend to be inflammatory and trollish and she has a long history of inserting demonstrably false claims within historical material that reflect her strong anti-Maori outlook. She is highly disruptive, creates loads of work for other editors to clean up behind her. And her trail of long talk page posts are usually unsigned. She has not learned to be collaborative and has not modified her behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 01:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If I may add to this. I have encountered Claudia on many occasions. She/he is so persistent, unreasonable, and closed to any attempt of a civilised discussion that my policy has become to take a page off my watchlist once Claudia starts to take an interest in it. Schwede66 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Am I right in thinking this is a LTA editor? Do we have a page where all the reports of this editor are logged? The earliest report I can find is December 2012 (edit: mentioned above)--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I had the same thoughts. Something pinged in the back of my mind about an editor would slag off a source based on what they read but could never produce evidence of that material merely insisting that they were sure they had read it and others who disputed should just take their word for it. I'm also wondering whether that person was banned. I don't think there was a LTA page for them though. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• For reference, the contributions of this IP 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · logs).
• Aha found something! ANI archived report. I also found that I participated in the block discussion...how about that?
• Pinging @Daveosaurus:, @Gadfium:, @Stuartyeates: who have some history with this user. Also pinging @Carrite: and @Softlavender: who contributed to the discussion and had some dissenting views as well as @EdJohnston: who blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Claudia has been editing since at least July 2009, and the question of how to manage her edits has been discussed sporadically since September 2010. Her edits have not improved since her year-long block in November 2014. I think a ban from articles on New Zealand history, broadly construed, would be appropriate.-gadfium 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've pulled together a table of reports to the administrator noticeboards. Let me know if I've missed anything. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a couple of blocks to the table. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And added the BLPN report.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Date	Report	Note
1 September 2010	ANI/19th century New Zealand history
16 August 2012		Blocked for 31 hours
5 December 2012	ANI/Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars	Blocked for 31 hours
6 January 2013		Blocked for 48 hours
14 January 2013	ANI/IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV
10 May 2013	3RR/122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab	Blocked for two weeks
2 July 2013		Blocked for one month
13 August 2013	ANI/User_talk:122.62.226.243 advice and guidance please
7 November 2014	ANI/Well-meaning but clueless IP editor	Blocked for one year
1 April 2016	BLPN/Duncan Cameron (British Army officer)

• User:BlackCab also filed at BLPN on 1 April. The thread is still open at WP:BLPN#Duncan Cameron (British Army officer). One of the diffs is this post by Claudia on the talk page of the living person James Belich (historian). Claudia's previous critique of this man is in Talk:James Belich (historian)/Archive 1. If another block is appropriate, it could be for two years. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In July 2013 Claudia was also blocked for a month by User:Moriori for similar behaviour. [176] That's four blocks I'm aware of, but still no modification of editing behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 05:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent interaction with Claudia, to show the level of aggravation she creates, is at Talk:Treaty of Waitangi#Proclamations 1840 style. BlackCab (TALK) 05:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing more to say on the topic not said above, except that the primary target, James Belich (historian), has continued to receive professional accolades, implying that professional historian community in no way shares the IP's views. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the singlemindedness of this person in their attacks on this historian and that their editing is restricted to topics about NZ history, a topic ban would amount to a site ban. Given their disruptiveness, that might actually be a better option. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a ban on the topic of NZ history would do the job. Claudia has also launched her attacks on conventional historical narrative (complete with conspiracy theories) at the talk pages of such articles as Māori King Movement, Parihaka, Waitara, New Zealand and Treaty of Waitangi, which she could conceivably argue are not articles on NZ history per se. She was given very firm guidance at the time of the last 12-month ban on how to conduct herself, but is in fact doing exactly the same thing. Unless the topic ban was for anything related to New Zealand, I would prefer a complete block, and a longer one this time. BlackCab (TALK) 03:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Claudia does seem to have a couple of other interests: boats and bicycles, from memory (and a cursory look at her recent contributions). I don't know enough about those subjects to know whether or not there is any value to her contributions, but at least those subjects don't seem to be as full of BLP-violation potential as New Zealand history.

I agree with Gadfium that a topic ban would be approriate - at least as a first step. Maybe a permanent topic ban from the history of New Zealand, or anything to do with the Māori people, or any biographies of living persons - or any combination of the three, up to and including all of them. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor has not changed her editing behaviour since the last block. This edit, summarising/paraphrasing the first paragraph on this webpage, confirms my suspicion as to her identity, at the same time confirming that many edits originate from her own work. This is certainly suggestive of extensive POV pushing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ, is that related to the bulk of material on the Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories article? Similar self-published authors involved here. BlackCab (TALK) 07:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, maybe just coincidence. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd honestly guess that it's not her site - Claudia appears ignorant of even basic Wiki markup while whoever produced that page seems to at least know their way around a content management / web page creator program. I'd just put that down to Claudia being unable to tell good sources from bad - she's had that problem before (once I had trouble finding any evidence that one of her sources even existed other than as an Internet document, because she used a garbled version of its name that the only other occurences then findable in Google all traced back to one white-supremacist blog). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in outing Claudia, but that website and that ideology probably help feed her conspiracy theories that lead to the denigration of Belich, King, Orange, Dalton, O'Malley and every researcher ever employed by the Waitangi Tribunal. BlackCab (TALK) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let us not stoop to outing. The IP's ideology is not the problem; the IP's long-term disruptive editing style is the problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• If she's continuing the same disruptive editing that she received a one-year block for, I don't think a topic ban is going to help. I'd say another very longterm block is in order. I'm also pinging additional editors involved in or referred to in the November 2014 ANI [177]: BlackCab, and Stuartyeates, and the following editors who posted warnings on her talk page up through November 2014: [178] Irondome, Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Gadfium, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Rudolp89, Adabow, DI2000, Winkelvi, Mufka, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, and Andrewprout. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Also, the following editors supported her one-year block in November 2014 [179]: Jusdafax, Gadfium, Ruby2010, Moriori, Andrewgprout, QPT. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• I wanna say I ran into this editor before the 2014 ANI thread (in which I actually can't find my comments, if there were any), and I wanna say I remember them from article/article talk space. Unworkable with, and apparently nothing's changed. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• BTW, "x is considered unreliable (some would say VERY unreliable)" is a very nice Trumpism. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, you blocked her in 2012 and 2013 [180], [181]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who gave the actual link to this page.The volume of criticism is rather overwhelming and it seems to me rather reactionary and misguided. I cant deal with it all now but a core problem seems to be that I am expressing my personal opinions about J Belich. For those editors who are not kiwis Mr Belich wrote a book based on his PhD about the NZ Wars in which he came up with a whole range of new ideas and theories. The book was very readable and popular and later made into a very popular 10?part TV seriesback in the 1980s and has entered NZ culture as the TV series was then made into a detailed teaching resource for secondary schools which was widely used I understand.

Black Cab (and his cheer leaders) seem to think that I have "made up" the criticism of Belich. This is just not true. After his first edition Belich himself was aware enough of an undercurrent of criticism of his book and some of his themes-enough to revise the 2nd edition and in particular add in the preface an admission that as a young man he had an "anti British attitude" and he was a "revisionist". It was a kind of explanation /apology.

Since then a raft of well known military historians especially Chris Pugsley and Richard Taylor (both army officers as well as historians) have criticised Belich in far more detail. Pugsley's main effort was in the short lived NZ Defence Quarterly in which he systematically debunked many of Belich's theories. In 2013 M.Hill completed his study of the Taranaki war in which he looked in detail at the historiography dealing with the war. He assembled some of the criticism of Belich in this MA thesis."The First Taranaki War. MA in History. Massey University.M.R. Hill 2013".It is now on line. Most of the information below is between P26 and 30 To summarize some of the points : 1 He identifies a range of historians who have issues with Belich and presents the evidence. 2 That Belich did not understand the mechanics of war. He did not understand military terms such as strategy, tactics or ammunition. 3 His idea that Maori invented trench warfare "was universally dismissed". 4 Not visiting or walking the battlefields (until many years later)and as a result making errors in distance and time leading to misunderstandings. 5 Maxwell (another historian) says"Belich mislead readers". 6 Belich "is virtually under seige" 7 I McFarlane wrote to Penguin complaining about "factual inaccuracy". 8 He says there is a"strange anti British and pro Maori undertow"(P30) 9 That Belich turned what were merely rumours into facts.

This is a brief summary only of Hills work. Note neither Belich nor his publisher have ever attempted to answer any of the points raised but Belich did leave NZ. I should note that when I pointed this out 2-3 years ago one editor made very snide remarks suggesting I was " attacking "him. As you can see it was not me attacking him but other historians.ieIT is fact that he was being criticised by his peers and he did go overseas. I should point out that there are only a handful of NZ historians working in this area (I would say about 12). NZ is a small market and as one of Hill's sources has said "its not possible to criticise Belich in NZ " -by that he means, I guess, the general ,ie not well informed, public.

I think a few editors have very fixed(maybe even partisan) views on NZ history so have come out with weird and wonderful accusations to justify deleting views that don't coincide with their own rather old fashioned notions. It is typical of such views to say that a different view is racist! They appear to have worked themselves into a digital lather! My position is that all views should be presented and in particular views or information that shows that an older historian was "misguided!" because they were writing with a deliberate intention to revise( Hill's thesis would suggest possibly distort) history. Marxist historians(of which NZ has had a few) are very good at rewriting history to support a particular political point of view. In the academic world informed criticism is welcomed. But Belich prefers not to answer it seems. You may wish to read M Hill and comment further? I'm pleased to answer any questions, though my response may not be immediate as Im very busy at work.115.188.178.77 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is never about whether you 'have "made up" the criticism of Belich'; the issue is whether you have supplied reliable sources for claims you have inserted into wikipedia. All claims on wikipedia need reliable sources, that's what makes it an encyclopedia. I believe I speak for the consensus of editors when I say that we don't care what you say about Belich, or Belich's research or the subjects of Belich's research. What we care about is having sources for claim, positive or negative and including them in useful ways in the articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment by Claudia demonstrates her misinterpretation and BLP violations resulting from it. Reading her statement, one could be forgiven for assuming that he had left New Zealand 'under a cloud'. But nothing could be further from the truth. He had in fact been appointed to a professorship at Oxford University in England, here [182] described as "one of the top jobs in the world in his field"; "awarded to a historian of exceptional and international reputation."

Another example of inability to correctly comprehend statements, this time without BLP problems (all participants are pseudonymous) is here: User_talk:122.62.226.243/Archive_1#Where_to_go_from_here Claudia at the time was claiming that for vague privacy-related reasons, she couldn't sign up for a Wikipedia account. I pointed out "If you create an account, nobody but Wikipedia administrators (and maybe only certain administrators, at that - this isn't something I've paid much attention to) would have access to your IP address"; Gadfium confirmed my suspicion, and clarified: "Administrators (such as myself) can't see a logged in user's IP address. It takes a checkuser, who goes through additional scrutiny and has to reveal their real-life identify to the WikiMedia Foundation, to see that."; which Claudia interpreted as "Thankyou gadfium for your information -it seems that old Dave was wrong again." If I'd been editing under a real name, that would have been a BLP violation right there - at least as I see it (but I seem to be a bit tougher on BLP than I should be). Daveosaurus (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Request: Could someone please post a list (at the top) of all the IPs this editor has edited under? I believe some editors who have actually interacted with her are having a hard time of placing her or her habits without the entire list. (For instance, thus far I am aware of 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 115.188.178.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and very early 222.153.154.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).) -- Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Add 219.89.178.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 125.237.39.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) BlackCab (TALK) 23:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates says: "I believe I speak for the consensus of editors when I say that we don't care what you say about Belich, or Belich's research or the subjects of Belich's research." In fact part of the problem is the fact that Claudia is using Wikipedia articles and talk pages as a soapbox for her distinctive view of NZ history, which involves a campaign to discredit Belich and other historians. I provided the links to some of her talk page comments at the outset of this complaint; at this edit she goes further by unilaterally deciding that Belich's view is not only wrong but has no place in the article at all. I keep finding long soapbox comments, many of them unsigned, at a range of talk pages where she expounds her unique take on history and lambasts real historians. She has been advised many times to start a blog of her own rather than misuse Wikipedia pages. BlackCab (TALK) 13:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Sample proposal: Since disruptive behavior has resumed following a one-year block (and four five prior blocks over the previous two years), perhaps a CIR indef or site-ban is in order. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC); edited 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've been doing some sleuthing on the net and have come across some interesting information regarding this issue and have a working hypothesis of what is going on here. However, the conclusion violates WP:OUTING. Suffice to say, there is a real world implication here, particularly at a professional level if Claudia is who I suspect it to be, provided it's not an impostor. If any admin wishes to seek further information from me, they are free to email me. On that note, I strongly support a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Considering she is targeting specific historians (all of them living if I'm not mistaken), and attacking them, a COI would not surprise me in the least. Given Blackmane's statements, I strongly support a site ban as well. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support a site ban for an indefinite period. The editor has shown no willingness to modify her behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support another one-year block I think an indef and site-ban is too much. Another year will hopefully get the point across. Not wanting to bring WP:BEANS to this individual's plate, but, an indef might encourage sockpuppetry. If a year doesn't do the trick this time, then an indefinite block can be put in place. Yes, I know they have been blocked previously, but I'm all for giving chances. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support either a site ban or a one-year block. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Four blocks never fixed the problem and another won't either in my opinion. The number of hours that editors have spent undoing her damage must be mind boggling. The first sentence of WP:Disruption says "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." The cap fits. Moriori (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban. She's been editing since 2006 (at Bucklands Beach) and is getting worse, not better.-gadfium 21:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - TBH, I'm quite amazed that the individual wasn't site banned, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Her history of disruptiveness and personal attacks are quite staggering. The community should not put up with this appalling behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and baseless accusations made by Legacypac

I've tried to tell Legacypac that personal attacks are discouraged. It's been enough.

• Calling me a troll
• Calls my edits troll-like, tries to obfuscate it or something, not to mention, I've no idea what in the world temptating means
• Compares me to a pig, I well know it as an idiom as Shaw's quote but it's insult was not lost on me

I've warned him again and again.

• 1st warning
• 2nd warning

Then, he said that I must keep off his talk page, so I did. And one more:

• On my talk page

And I've warned him on the RfC page too. HighInBC told me that on my talk page that my conduct was sub-par and that I failed to assume AGF here. Well, the thing is after Legacypac says something like, "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." diff you simply can't assume good faith. (It - Drafts)
Legacypac has a good history of personal attacks too, he got warned for one here.

• comparing other editors to a troll (yes, again!)
• accusing someone of PA, the irony

Some more baseless accusations with no proof:

• Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other.
• this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with
• WV loves one way interaction bans.

WV - Winkelvi, Ches - Chesnaught555
Not to mention, Legacypac has a chronic problem with opposition, creating revenge threads on ANI for each of them, here, here and here. Also, to top it off, a beautiful piece of ad hominem attitude. Hope I've bored you enough. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ease up please QEDK. It has been great having you on my side in trying to get some points across, but we are now making progress. Legacypac has received an awful lot of criticism, sorry that you have received the reaction, but let's ease up and let the RfC have some air. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Maybe if you were in my position, you'd say otherwise. We're making progress on the content side of it, yes but that is no reason to take me for granted, I am a human and I see no reason why I am repeatedly attacked even after I tried, again and again, to be the nice person in the whole incident. If he's received criticism, I trust it's for a reason. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment QEDK is spot on and I'm glad he provided examples that involve me because I would have done the same. I have been the subject of LP's attacks and sub-par behavior for quite some time. I've asked him to stop, I've warned him he needs to stop. There are others who have done the same and have also been the object of his uncivil behavior. He seems to think he's made of Teflon and continues without care. How long do we, as a community, have to take his abuse? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• QEDK: Your "troll" diff shows LP removing your comment from his talk page; your comment, in full, was "That's purposeful misinterpretation for ya.". Are you saying you were not trolling? The "wrestling a pig" diff shows LP removing his comment where he had written hyper-abbreviated nonsense to mimic your comment written in that style. Doing that is not ideal editor behavior but it's not that bad under the circumstances (why did you write that nonsense?). Johnuniq (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I prefer you stop your insinuation, I think everyone (except you i.e.) understood that I wasn't trolling and I've discussed it with specific detail (did you by any chance, miss the edit summaries?). I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment. You should know the actual substance of the whole situation before you take on your challenge. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation" - Huh? - ^theWOLFchild 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the conversation in question, and the de-voweling: [183] It does not reflect well on QEDK, and SmokeyJoe violated WP:TPO by altering it. (Hatting might have been in order, but not alteration.) Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disemvoweling is a moderation method consistent with TPO. With a bit of humour. The discussion had become unproductive and some moderation may have helped. Yes, hatting might be better, and it even allows the hatter to make a snide or witty comment in the hat header. It was pleasing to see a comment removed, but barbs in edit summaries were not. If either editor wants their vowels back, I stored them offline and can give them back on Tuesday. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotta move the vowels every morning to stay regular _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You most certainly did make that remark. As well as the other one where you templated him/her. You know very well what he/she meant by temptating. I don't 100% understand your reply - to be fair. SQL^{Query me!} 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think everyone understood that you weren't trolling. It looked to me like you were trying to illicit a negative reaction. What starts out as a friendly conversation quickly devolved into you making accusations of bad faith. Someone interpreting things differently as you is not the same as "purposeful misinterpretation". Once you went to the accusations of bad faith you were reverted, to which you responded to with a template, which was reverted, and you gave another template. Is this a productive means of communication?

Yes, Legacypac called you some names, but you are hardly without blame here. Attacking somebodies motives is at least as uncivil as name calling. My comment on your user page was meant to prepare you for the fact that both of your behaviour would be looked at if you felt the need to make a post about this here, I am glad you are comfortable with that. HighInBC 13:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: When did I say that I did not? And my vocabulary is not well enough, so I guess I haven't come across the word, "temptating", maybe you can shed light on the matter. Also, there's a reason I templated him/her, I meant to warn him of the impending result and not to make rash decisions without thought. He, however, did not care.

@HighInBC: I do not fear scrutiny. If the community thinks I assumed bad faith without reason or that I've been in the wrong multiple times, I shall pay the price. You don't need to keep reminding me of that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to very clearly understand the typo "temptating" to mean "templating". For two, in your rant, you made the statement "I did not write that nonsense, SmokeyJoe decided to remove vowels from our conversation and Legacypac was well aware of that, since he replied to me when the comment was unmodified and later removed his modified comment.". It seems to be in reference to one of the diffs I linked - tho I am having a lot of trouble identifying what you are talking about. SQL^{Query me!} 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am just wondering what admin action you think should apply to legacy? You assumed bad faith, he called you a name, really it is not something I would block either of you for. It is certainly not something I would block one but not the other for. However I am involved enough in the underlying dispute that another admin can decide what to do, or what not to do. HighInBC 14:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just you - I don't see what action could be taken here that benefits the encyclopedia, and holds to our policies. I guess, really really technically they could both be warned to behave better in the future? SQL^{Query me!} 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it calls for just a warning, and since anyone can give a warning here it is. Legacypac, please don't engage in name calling as it is against our policy. QEDK, please don't assume bad faith as it is also against our policy. I really don't know what benefit further action will result in. HighInBC 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

See this [184]. This is the nonsense I was talking about. Also, I thought temptating was tempting but I could make no connection, thanks for shedding the light.

Since both of you have been involved in previous disputes (typically on the other side), I prefer to not take my advice regarding this from you. The community can decide. Thanks, though. I believe a one-off wrong can be differentiated from repeated disgraceful behaviour, since 2 admins here clearly can't see the difference. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just wish all these cats would stop reporting each other. If they can confine their...what's the word...mutual bitching? sniping? at each other to their talk pages, we'd all be better off. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I've been banned from his talk page with a "Buzz off." *sigh* --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand Drmies, but we've tried to be nice, time and again. Yet, we are here again, despite all the effort, now all wasted on him. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"we've tried to be nice, time and again." Amen to that. It's as if no one cares about WP:CIVIL anymore, including admins who seem to be no longer taking it seriously (not pointing a finger at you, Drmies, I'm making a general observation). I understand telling editors they need to toughen up and/or just go about their business and not be so sensitive, but in the case of LP (and, frankly, another editor I can think of immediately) it's a continual thumb of the nose from him in the way of what's collegial and civil. He seems to simply no longer care that he's being unbelievably rude and attacking other editors and that behavior is impeding productive contributions, productive discussion, and productive solutions to problems. In other words: it's gone past being annoying, it's disruptive and destructive. My personal opinion about why he does it is because no one is doing anything about it and he's been allowed to continue in that vein repeatedly. Anyone even remotely familiar with behavior management could look at the unwanted, inappropriate behavior and attitude from LP in conjunction with the lack of reaction from admins and say: if there are no consequences, the message being sent is "please continue and escalate". And that's exactly what he's doing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to tell anyone to toughen up--but admins (if I can generalize) just get tired of this. The chain of diffs and insults is too complicated and tedious, and maybe iBans all around are the only solution, but then, who would want to enforce iBans, which are notoriously difficult to apply? Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We're in the business of difficulty. After all, that's why we get all the power, glory, and riches that come with the bit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I strive for accuracy in communications and Internet troll fits QEDK's actions exactly. I have real life work to do today and wrestling with a pig is not on my priority list. I'm sorry if anything I said was misinterpreted as name calling. No one has ever been banned from my talk page, but I do remove personal attacks and nonsense from it as is my right. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• But your accuracy, then, leads to a personal attack. "Internet troll", when applied to a Wikipedia editor, means you don't believe the editor to be contributing to the project in good faith--but ANI is not a good forum if the case is not so easy to make, which I think is what's happening here as well. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Legacypac you are often rude and accusatory in your interactions. I can very well see why QEDK has lost patience with you. 217.38.191.252 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies you are welcome to your idea of what trolling is, but that is not exactly my idea. My meaning is best summed up in the lead of Internet troll "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." There are part time trolls and even single troll type edits so saying an edit is trolling or the editor is acting like a troll does not imply all their activity falls into trolling. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For a great laugh, check out WV last userpage edit summary [185] compared to his posts in this thread. Looks like he is calling someone a troll to me. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no plausible way that QEDK could be called a troll. He started out complaining about specific actions by Legacypac (which have been reverted, per consensus). Furthermore, I see no plausible reading of LP's comments which does not constitute a stealthy attempt to rewrite policies on drafts. Now that the draft policy discussion is out in the open, QEDK, LP, and others should stop commenting on the former actions, but only comment on current actions (of which QEDK's here and LP's on the guidelines and on user talk pages deserve censure.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Which of my comments need censure, mate? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Referring to someone as a troll on one occasion among a ton of edit summaries and talk page discussions where few to none such comments have taken place previously is not a good parallel for you to make, LP. Why? Because you personally attack other editors and call them names frequently. If your habit of doing so were not reality, Drmies wouldn't have pointed out to you what he did above. Indeed, I've never known him to just make such comments willy-nilly or without a good reason - he's very reluctant to make such accusations, in my experience. What's more, for you to say, in essence, "Look, they did it, so it's okay for me to do it, too!" is not a good defense. In fact, it's a very childish response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

He's been throwing dirt at the people who oppose him since 1997. I count exactly 0 admins who care about this issue when others have been blocked for less. Strange is this world and stranger is the Wikipedia community. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem accepting any conclusion other than the one you want. The more you do this, the more the problem looks like being you. No action is going to be taken against Legacypac, other than asking him to stop personalising the dispute and dial down the rhetoric, which has already happened. This much is pretty obvious. If you want to stay here and continue to call for the wrath of Jimbo to be brought down on his head, all that will happen is that you'll be filed in the box of "vindictive and disputatious" and treated accordingly. Both of you are doing what you think is in Wikipedia's best interest, right now you seem to be the vocal one who refuses to accept that the other party is acting in good faith. That's not a good place to be. Your best bet is actually to seek common ground, because right now you are both so fixated on the points of difference that you're never going to stop fighting. If you are genuinely acting in good faith then that should be a serious concern for you. Legacypac being wrong in making some of his statements does not mean you are right in making any or all of yours. You have both personalised the dispute, and admins tend not to draw much of a distinction in such cases - instead we focus on the ones who do not accept the problem and continue to try to fight the battle rather than putting their hands up and calming down. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what to expect now, honestly. I guess it was my mistake that I expected "something" out of this well-intentioned and factually correct thread. Maybe if I called you a troll or a pig thrice, you'd be in a different position. Again, I guess I have incredibly thin skin. *no sarcasm* --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

1997? Wikipedia was created in 2001. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, QEDK, you were trolling in all three instances where Legacypac rightly called you out on it (twice on his own talk page). Once again you are accusing Legacypac of what you yourself are actually guilty of [186]. Sooner or later this is going to backfire in a way that you do not like -- even SmokeyJoe agrees with that. Drop this and move on. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that trolling? You got it all wrong. I am guilty of a making a topic ban proposal against Legacypac? That certainly makes sense. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• A personal attack against me by Legacypac: "Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy." Edit summary: "ridiculous troll". Legacypac makes comments of this nature often, as is shown above, which is detrimental to civil discussion. They shouldn't be able to behave this way with impunity.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at what you said Godsy [[187] and yes, you continue to stalk my edits even today or is it just coincidence you are editing multiple new articles I just touched? Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Personal Attacks by User:Garuk Gar, one of the many many many socks of User:Cow Cleaner 5000.

Is there anything more that can be done about the many offensive edits by this user and her virtually unlimited supply of socks? See these (ahem) "contributions" which are all personal attacks against myself and multiple editors and admin. She has created more than 100 socks[188][189] to pursue her conspiracy agenda. She also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Justin Anthony Knapp, bordering on stalking. Could someone at WP contact her ISP maybe? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I assume CC5K is a "her" due to the user's self-declaration of that gender[190] and her rant about embracing feminism as the "one way forward".Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely since that same diff says My husband Justin Anthony Knapp is very upset over this article yet CC5K constantly attacks Knapp as a terrorist... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Knapp says otherwise on his talk page... "CowCleaner comes back intermittently to say something about how great I am and how a manga magazine is a terrorist organization." Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Short of revert, block, catalog, and then ignore, there isn't much else that can be done. A range block is impossible as the editor uses multiple open proxies to wage their little campaign of disruption, misinformation, and harassment. The only outstanding problem is when an administration is too lazy read the preexisting case file on this individual and only gives a short term block, even after being directed to the case file. —Farix (t | c) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Farix. Appreciate the response. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

82.30.110.20 impersonating another editor

82.30.110.20 made this edit to my Talk page, using the signature of Diannaa. The same editor overwrote my comment on Diannaa's Talk page. Edits speak for themselves. 32.218.45.217 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

With the events of today, if someone like you can behave as you have done without consequence, I am seriously beyond caring. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 32.218.45.217

Looking at 82.30.110.20's comment history, he's pissed that you reverted one of his edits and is throwing a tantrum.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Block reviews

I blocked Threegoodmonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as WP:NOTHERE, two edits only, both blatant trolling, and if this is not a sockpuppet then I am a threegoodmonkeys' uncle.

I also blocked Hendersonmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for more complex treasons, which should nonetheless be readily obvious from a quick review of his contributions. I have been watching Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some time, it is a device claimed by its inventor (a convicted fraudster) to generate substantial amounts of essentially free energy; there is a crossover with cold fusion and a long history of promotion of claims which are generally reckoned by the reality based community to have no merit. Given [191] I'd have thought this wasn't in the least controversial as a block-and-revert, but one editor has demanded that I recant so I bring it here for review. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Good blocks both. Miniapolis 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Without even giving my thoughts regarding their possible sock puppet connections here, I will say that both of these blocks are completely justified, were made with good judgment and cause, as were well within Wikipedia's blocking policy. I agree that they are suspicious per this edit. Not only a day after Hendersonmj was blocked, Threegoodmonkeys was created. Just 11 minutes later, the edit above was made (which was only the user's second edit). Is it a "smoking bullet", such as having similar words, habits, articles, MO, etc? No. But it does yield reasonable suspicion? Yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

We block people for WP:TREASON now? Heh, all hail His Royal Majesty Jimbo the First, Ruler over the English Wikipedia, Emperor over all language colonies, projects, and metas and Lord of Wikia.--v/r - TP 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly. For treason, we sue them in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Only petty treason you know! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Violates BLOCKNO - What JzG forgot to mention is that he is not only watching Energy Catalyzer, but also editing it, edit warring on it, and discussing it on the talk page from a strong POV [192] [193] [194] [195] [196]. It was only after the block that the blocked user outed themselves as a sockpuppet. WP:INVOLVED and WP:BLOCK are pretty clear that admins don't get to take control of content of an article that they have decided is not "reality based" and block users who get in their way. I would expect that admins doing this repeatedly might find themselves desysoped at some point. I would also point out that while comments about Rossi's past criminality are not WP:BLP violations, speculation that he is still committing crimes blatantly violates WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep; two edits there in the last six months... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So involvement "expires" after 6 months now? I must have missed that memo. Pretty obvious that Guy is involved here - while these may have been good blocks, he should not have made them himself. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am "involved" in preventing long-term abuse of Wikipedia by a convicted fraudster. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to tie an admin's hands because they're familiar with a topic. It's unnecessary bureaucracy to have to call in another admin for such obvious cases. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy and practice say otherwise.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is also policy, you know, though I see below you don't put much stock in it. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I'm honestly a bit torn here. First of all, I will acknowledge your response, your concerns, and the diffs that you provided. While the diffs do show JzG's involvement with the article, they were made back in August and September 2015. It also appears that any opposition to Hendersonmj's edits would be content and source-related (I'm going to read through each of Hendersonmj's changes again). Do edits made six months ago still consider a user involved? My thought is that it depends on the situation. My first gut reaction when it comes to this situation is no, but I'll admit that I'm not overly familiar with the "history" of this policy and what has been determined in the past. However, if I were in JzG's shoes, I probably would have played it safe and had someone else do the blocking (because you never know). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for other admins to take an interest in this article. It's been a problem for a looooong time and it's heating up (no pun intended) because Rossi is now suing an investor who considers he failed to prove his claims. We are likely to see a fair bit of SPA action there in coming months. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an emergency. If the article is subjected to problem editing, someone will report it, and someone else (an involved admin) will take care of it. This is how it's supposed to work, and by the way, it tends to work really well.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah:. The reason JzG is involved and should not be blocking people he's in content disputes with and protecting the article for a year, is not only because he's edited the article, but also because he has an expressed bias about the subject, and apparently a loathing of its inventor. Admins don't get to skate around policy or WP:BLP policy just because they really really feel strongly about a subject.- MrX 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MrX - I completely understand what constitutes being "involved" as an Administrator, and I agree that he would have been seen as "involved" if he had made those edits you listed a week ago, or maybe even a month ago and then performed the block on Hendersonmj today - especially if it would have gained him an upper hand in a dispute, argument, or with contributing or editing the article. However, it's been six months since he's last contributed to the article whatsoever (assuming the diffs listed were the latest edits that he made to the article/talk page). Is he currently in any content disputes with anyone involving the Energy Catalyzer article and at this very time? Is there something that can show that his blocks were done in order to gain an upper hand in a dispute that is currently occurring? Again, I admit that I haven't observed enough discussions to where I fully gauge how long or when an Administrator would cease becoming "involved" with an article, but my first reaction here is to ask these questions and then base my judgment off of these answers. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• JzG was completely upfront about his minor involvement (note the lowercase) in this article and I don't see a case here that the blocks were bad ones in any other respect. We have WP:IAR for this very reason, to ignore the strictest interpretation of policy subclauses in order to do something that obviously benefits the encyclopedia. Let's remember we have 2-300 active admins and 5 million articles. We can't rely on getting someone else to do it in every case. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Interesting. Does it go without saying that you also believe that IAR applies to the BLP policy that people constantly beat their chests about? - MrX 20:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  The whole point of IAR is to employ common sense in specific unforeseen cases that don't fit into strict policy boxes. So I can't say what would be an appropriate case until I see it, otherwise we'd just put that into the policy. If there's a BLP issue here, please let us know what it might be. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think I already understand the principle and practicality of IAR. Regarding BLP, evidently you didn't trouble yourself to read any of the diffs that I already provide upthread, such as:

• "Yes, he [Rossi] has a patent on a water heater. No doubt this will help him raise more capital, using bait-and-switch."
• "I think it is very useful that you have publicly associated yourself with Radin, Weiler, Sheldrake and sundry other cranks"
• "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims."

I look forward to hearing about how these comments improve the encyclopedia and how they are not indicative of an inappropriate bias for anyone using admin tools anywhere near this article.- MrX 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're right, I apologize for forgetting that part of the discussion. I don't want to encourage such comments but I don't see anything particularly problematic about them, sorry. According to our article on Rossi, he was responsible for a series of frauds, including a notorious cold fusion fraud. The encyclopedia should not be used to lambaste criminals but we can point out that a person who committed fraud is a person who committed fraud if it is relevant to the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. Rossi is a convicted fraudster, that is a matter of established fact. It is also an established fact that he has used several successive announcements of funding to imply legitimacy. I encourage any admins to look through the talk page history - there are two kinds of people promoting the e-cat, cold fusionists and Rossi believers. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion is relevant, as is the pseudoscience case. I draw a distinction between newbies appearing at the talk page to tell us we're completely wrong and Rossi's device will save the world, and people who appear and pitch right in to editing content, repeating prior rejected edits, and showing knowledge of Wikipedia jargon. I don't think that is unreasonable. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying "Rossi was convicted of fraud" (past tense; factual; sourced) and "Rossi is perpetrating a fraud" (present tense; speculation; unsourced). If I posted on talk:Dennis Hastert something like "Dennis Hastert is probably molesting boys right now", I would rightfully be admonished, if not blocked. If I did it repeatedly, I would be blocked. This type of conduct from an admin is shameful and falls short of the high standard of conduct that's expected of admins (or so I thought).- MrX 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the three quotes you list states that Rossi is committing fraud, only that he has a history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims, which is - as you yourself note - a matter of simple fact. I have no particular interest in this other than as an extension of the cold fusion article with its long history of advocacy editing by cold fusion believers. If anything my POV should be the opposite to what you imply, as my best friend actually worked on Fleischmann's original cold fusion experiments, but I don't really have a POV other than "prove it" and that means not taking Rossi's word at face value. It would be like taking Kevin Trudeau's word on a claim about the HCG diet. We simply don't take the word of people with a legally established history of dishonesty, especially in the area where that dishonesty was identified (in Rossi's case free energy). And we don't sit idly by while "brand new editors" pile in to add previously rejected promotional content. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model, the fact that it happened again does not affect the unproven status of the device or Rossi's history of fraud and unsubstantiated claims." I don't see how a reasonable person in the reality-based community, with basic grade school reading comprehension skills could see that as anything other than strongly implying that Rossi is committing fraud. To put it even more simply, "It happened again (Getting people to throw money down the drain)" and "Getting people to throw money down the drain is Rossi's business model" are unsourced smears and plainly not allowed by WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• These were both good blocks. The second would not have been if it hadn't been promptly brought here for review. —Cryptic 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and I thank MrX for prompting me to do so, I should have done this without a reminder and I will bear that in mind going forward. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

JzG's behavior has fallen short of the standard's expected of both editor and adminstrator; this rollback style edit is not minor [197] and does not meet the criteria for use at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. His block of Hendersonmj, with no prior discussion on article or user talk, is both hasty and involved. The fact the Cold Fusion has been crap since Fleischmann and Pons conned politicians and the media in 1989 is not a valid reason to violate policy; Wikipedia standard is reliable sources, not truth (see, for example, Chemtrails and numerous articles on inexplicably notable people -- names omitted per BLP but think so-called "reality TV" ...).. WP:IAR is properly understood as not letting the technical wording of policies interfere doing the commonsense thing, not an excuse to skip necessary steps in dispute resolution. WP:AGF and all that, and no, no one is suggesting wiki suicide, it's really just not that important an article. The notion that admins are hard to find is not supported by evidence; a recent AN request had a wait time of only 21 minutes; there was nothing so urgent requiring action on Energy Catalyzer in an accelerated time frame. I'd like to see a reversal of the Henderonmj block and a commitment from JzG to avoid misuse of rollback in the future. NE Ent 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I always enjoy your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. I rolled the edit back because it was blatantly promotional. Remember the context: a "free energy" cold fusion device that is being promoted by a convicted fraudster. Dispute resolution is fine for genuinely new accounts (cf. recent AE against Conzar, a sincere but misguided newbie). This looks like a sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet, given the known and documented off-wiki collaboration of cold fusionists).

With the exception of the lawsuit, which was under discussion on Talk, the material added was largely material that has been the subject of extensive prior debate, and rejected as synthesis. There is a patent, therefore it works! Or not, since British Rail had a patent for a flying saucer powered by nuclear explosions.

If any admin wants to replace the block with a DS notice and warning then that's fine. Or if the consensus of uninvolved admins is that I was wrong, then I will unblock and apologise. I have no problem with people asking me to post a block for review, I have no problem with accepting the results of any independent review (we can of course ignore the voices of the usual griefers). Guy (Help!) 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual, NE Ent is encouraging trouble for the encyclopedia with completely unrealistic views about what others should do. Anyone wanting to offer advice about how to prevent fringe pushers subverting articles should spend a few months helping stem the never-ending inflow first. Johnuniq (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging trouble by pointing out that an admin is using admin tools (rollback, protection, and blocking) to control content? Thank you NE Ent! The way to prevent articles from being subverted with fringe pushing is the same way you prevent bad content in any any topic area. If you want to see a never-ending inflow of bad content, try new page patrol. I assure you, fringe topics are not our biggest wiki-emergency, by far. - MrX 22:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, a contentious topic Homophobia has been kept NPOV without any involved blocks by simply watching and editing [198], [199] and reverting NPOV inclusions with appropriate edit summary [200]. While tiresome and tedious, it's not actually that hard to edit per policy. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• both blocks were good. i should note that i was one of the targets of threemonkey's monkeying around. also kudos to Guy for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have read through all of the difference posts and the comments here. It seems to me that JzG ought to have asked another administrator to step in. There are many admins who would have been able to intervene without the appearance of impropriety. I seem to recall the Arbitration Committee requiring that in multiple rulings of theirs. I don't see any outright problems with what JzG did but HOW he went about it. New England Cop (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds easy, but people who have tried it know that it often does not work. Admins are busy and an uninvolved admin would need at least half an hour to understand the background before they were in a position to think about the particular edits being reported. The topic in question is a magic box that produces an inexhaustible stream of very low cost energy, and people have invested large amounts in the company that is developing the device. Along with the free energy comes an inexhaustible supply of editors keen to add factoids to promote the device. Please review the archived talk page discussions and join in if you would like to help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Please post a diff of an administrator requesting assistance on either AN or ANI and not getting a timely response from another administrator. NE Ent 23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • JzG has been an admin for a very long time and has been involved in enough controversy that he clearly knows the Arbitration Committee requires excusing oneself and calling in an uninvolved administrator when there is even the appearance of impropriety. He chose to ignore this and all in all it's a very, very minor violation of the rules of conduct governing administrators. I'd simply file it away and keep it in mind when and if JzG is ever called to the carpet to explain the many controversies he has been involved in. I propose archiving this thread but not forgetting it. New England Cop (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What I should have done was post it for review unprompted. That owuld have stopped the disruption and maintained transparency. I acknowledge fault here, and have thanked MrX for reminding me that this is what I should have done. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• First block is obviously fine under the traditional interpretation of wp:involved, which is to not worry about it much when it comes to "duh" cases like that one. I didn't bother looking at the second block but it sounds ok too based on other people's comments, and that no one has called for overturning it. Bringing it here for review when someone asked for that sufficed, imho. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and disruptive behavior by Lugnuts

I was checking new pages using AWB and I made a minor change in one of the articles. To my surprise, the reported user reverted my minor edit without saying why. It was a simple issue but I had the question why my revert were reverted. So I started a talk page discussion and asked him explain the reasoning behind his revert. He referred to the rules regarding "how to use AWB". However, it was surprising for me to see a minor change (that makes zero change to the appearance of the article and only removes some excess spacing) reverted. Anyway, in response he made ad hominem comments and spoke in a rough manner by saying "you think every one else is wrong", " you're having trouble understanding" and "Pathetic".

I also removed an external link of the article per WP:ELNO but he again reverted me. When I explained the points on the talk page, he again kept on accusing me and making uncivil comments. I kindly asked him to be polite on his talk page. But he removed my comment (no problem, that was his own talk page) and also removed all of the exchanged comments from the article talk page and reverted me again when I restored the material and called me a troll in his edit summaries.

His block log shows that, among other issues, he had been blocked twice for "Personal attacks or harassment" by FreeRangeFrog and Stephan Schulz and was unblocked by Floquenbeam after his apology provided that he "tone it down" (which he fails to do now!). I think he has competence issues. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure sounds like Lugnuts. Don't expect anyone to do anything about it. He's learned to game ANI too well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

About once per year he gets really crazy and then he is blocked, but this year he is probably not yet at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears he/she is aware of this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 09:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: Please do not use automated tools in a manner that irritates other editors. By all means fiddle around with whitespace if you like, but if you are just doing drive-by edits like that and are reverted, it is best to ignore the article. There are plenty of other pages where you can adjust whitespace, and there is no need to argue about it. At any rate, going to ANI over such an argument is not productive. You may be irritated that your concerns were not addressed in a manner that satisfies you, but it seems fair to assume that the other party feels the same way. Just walk away, find another article, and don't seize on other trivia like removing an external link. How do you think that comes across? Remember that this is a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq: I think I were not able to focus on the main issue regarding the reported user. His competence issues are much more irritating. As I said he made attack and uncivil comments. He also removed the contents of the article talk page and reverted me when I restored them. He should not have done that, should he? The one who can't handle such a simple issue and makes such comments, can't contribute in more challenging discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I did not "seize on other trivia like removing an external link". I did not remove the link furthermore. Mhhossein (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, aside from I agree the Iran comment [was] way out of line, Lugnuts has acted within policy in all of this, so you'd best move on and drop it. Even however you admitted that the removal of the EL was not necessary, and please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that removal wasn't seizing on other trivia. Move on; lay off the article and hopefully off of AWB; withdraw this ANI filing before it boomerangs on you. This is an extremely silly content dispute with a couple of inopportune words added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC): edited 12:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a content dispute. Based on what you said, Lugnuts has acted within policy by 1) insisting on blanking the talk page of the article, 2) saying "Carry on with whatever the f**k it is you do." 3) making ad hominem comments. 4) making similar uncivil comments. Are you serious? What you simply called a silly content dispute accompanied by "couple of inopportune words" is similar to what made him blocked twice before. He is not able to just tone it down! Forget about the content, the behavioral issues are being discussed here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I missed the fact that he blanked the article talk page. (I've re-reverted it now.) Yes, this does not look good. It looks like Lugnuts is having a meltdown and is gunning for a block. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Having read the argument on the article talk page, the content does appear more appropriate for a user talk page. There's no real discussion about improving the specific article in question, it's more two editors finding fault in each other's actions and Mhhossein's use of AWB.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's an ongoing discussion on my talkpage regarding this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment this is all part of his never ending angry crusade to engage in coitus with the AWB tool. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts may have a point when it comes to AWB edits that don't change the rendering of a page. However, he should be able to defend his reverts and respond to criticism without flying off the handle. The fact that he apparently hasn't learned his lesson from past blocks is concerning. clpo13_(talk) 17:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there logic in reverting an edit you think is pointless? Is that not even more pointless and hypocritical? Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems Lugnuts is reverting to prove some point about AWB, which is why it's even more important for him to be civil when someone asks him about those reverts. The original edits may be unnecessary, but I agree that reverting is likewise unnecessary. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13 and Legacypac: I was astonished to see such a minor change reverted! Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The initial edit by Mhhossein sure was mostly useless and it better be avoided, more so if done in some automated way. But generalising about "AWB users" and "Iranian people" and then using that to attack another user should not be taken lightly. We all do and say silly things once in a while (I do...) and that should not be cause for much trouble, but if it is frequent, it needs more than a warning. Apparently it is the case with Lugnuts, according to some of the previous comments and to the fact that the name sounded familiar from this venues. - Nabla (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• I blanked that talk page before I saw that there was discussion over it; Ponyo, as usual, is right--in my opinion. It's not related to article improvement--it couldn't be, since the edit was inconsequential, and the revert therefore warranted. Mhhossein, sorry, but that's the fact. I don't think Lugnuts is cruisin' for anything though, and Lugnuts you know I love you like my new favorite non-stick skillet, but that Iran remark was just totally asinine and you really should apologize for it. As for the rest: my dear Mhhossein, I think Lugnuts's explanation should have sufficed the first time around. Also, it's rough to be reverted, believe me, I know. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: But as the others said and as I tried to tell him while discussing the points, his revert was something surprising and unnecessary. Anyway, @Ponyo: how do you think discussing the "keeping" or "removing" of an external link was not improving and/or at least related to the article? All in all, his incivilities, which has to be stopped, was much more irritating! Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that all this fuss arose because your original edit was reverted? And your original edit was to fiddle with whitespace in a new article (24 minutes after it had been created)? Are your views and feelings so important that all this time can be wasted because you don't like having your edits reverted, even when they are trivial? Please learn from what independent editors have said here—drop the matter and find another article to work on. This is a collaborative community and we each need to make an effort to get on with others, even if they are prickly. You may believe that the external link is a separate issue, but no one else does—it was obvious retaliation to leave your mark on the short stub and to let the other editor know that you won't take being reverted without a fight. Johnuniq (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you clearly don't understand something about AWB: Never, ever make a whitespace-only edit with it. People hate that; it is extremely rude behavior. Go to the Skip tab and check General skip option "Only whitespace" so it will automatically skip saving those kind of pointless edits. Now you know, right? Prhartcom (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: No, I don't, because never filled this report for being reverted! As already said above, He's done some attacks. He's apparently done this before. I did not need to retaliate, since I never removed the link after the revert. Please assume good faith (I think you know where the AGF page is so I don't embed the wikilink) and don't make such clear judgement in future. So you endorse his attacks and generic remarks? And on "Are your views and feelings so important that all this time can be wasted because you don't like having your edits reverted, even when they are trivial", can you hear me? this is not a matter of being reverted. Other editors pointed the attacks and incivilities. Can you understand that? You are free to not waste your time here. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thanks for tip but did you not miss some other issues? Mhhossein (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I thought this was archived; you're telling me you reverted an archive just so that you could continue to argue? Fine, I'll engage with you one more time. You're referring to Lugnut's behavior, including the racist statement he made to you. Yes, that was clearly wrong, it's a blockable offense, I don't appreciate it, and you are right to be offended by it. You were very polite when opening this complaint and you assumed good faith. On all those things I agree with you. However, that doesn't change the fact that you were foolishly using a powerful tool in a naive way, bumbled into a no-win situation, and made a dumb mistake. I wish you would own up to that fact and drop this righteous indignation. You provoked this fight with your naivete, my friend. Please don't reject the wise advice of Johnuniq above. That's not a good sign. That advice was very well stated; please re-read it. If you reject it again, it indicates you have a problem admitting your own mistakes. Please don't point the finger at everyone while lacking the courage to point it at yourself when necessary. If it were up to me, I would block you for that. Instead, why don't you, right now, apologize for your naivete and just back away from this issue you caused, like everyone has been urging you to do? I promise you'll be happier for it. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom totally off topic and way out of line of course, but I have been giggling at your username for a while now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's not too inspired a username, is it? Ah well! I could just tell everyone it's a codename I used back when I went undercover. Prhartcom (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions

In March 2015, Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) had an editing restriction imposed because he was routinely reverting any edit made by an IP address based editor regardless of whether it was vandalism or a good faith edit. The editing restriction was:

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

On the 23rd March 2016, Wtshymanski reverted an IP editor in violation of this ban with this edit.

On the 16th March, Wtshymanski reverted an IP address editor with this edit. This was an indirect revert (by copy pasting) of this good faith edit made by an IP address editor. The ban was enacted precisely to stop this last behaviour.

Note: that the ban was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski was disguising reverts of good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism. This is also a known tactic: to carry out an apparently harmless edit in amongst a raft of other edits to check if anyone is watching. If they are not, it is back to business as usual. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the long ANI discussion about this editing restriction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This was a perfectly good revert. However, a ban applies and it's indefinite. Nevertheless, I find swinging the ban hammer based on a single (good) revert a little too much. The remedy was proposed to break a pattern, and this edit can hardly be said to fit that particular mold. Don't try to kill a gnat with a howitzer... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for the known tactic, unless you have evidence (and show it) that this is a recurring pattern with this user WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about this because although I'd fully support these particular edits (one is vandalism, one an error) there is a problem here that Wtshymanski acquired a richly deserved editing restriction to limit. He is in breach of it.

I favour no action here, as I can't see that any action would be any more than punitive. However he should be reminded that the restriction is in place. Any further reversions like this are likely to attract sanctions.

I'm mostly unimpressed by the IP editor here trawling to find excuses to bring Wtshymanski to ANI weeks after an uninvolved event. In what way is that a constructive action? Is there need for a WP:BOOMERANG here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Andy nailed it. The vandalism revert was brainless. yes W should not have done it, but pointless to punish now. But spank that petty IP. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the best response would be to caution Wtshymanski with no other administrative action. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion If Wtshymanski didn't breach the ban for over a year (block log is clean since 2013, so I can only assume this is the case), and their first technical slipup was not of the same disruptive kind that led to the ban in the first place, perhaps someone should suggest appealing the ban, or maybe putting them on probation where they can revert clear vandalism, mistakes, etc. for, say, six months, before the restriction is lifted entirely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite and infinite are not the same. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

An examination of Wtshymanski's editing history answers your point. Since the ban in March 2015, Wtshymanski has only made a handful of edits (19 to be precise) up to March of this year. He has since then sprung back to life with nearly 200 edits.

Someone above dismissed the second example that I posted as an 'error'. In what way? The IP editor made a good faith edit that was technically correct. It might be argued by some that we don't call batteries as cells in every day parlance but that is not the point. Wtshymanski reverted the edit against his ban. Part of the original complaint was that Wtshymanski was not checking the history prior to his actions.

An editing ban is an editing ban. Either we have them or we don't. At the very least, Wtshymanski should be warned that he has erred. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is interesting, and does make me lean more toward a six-month probation period before all sanctions are lifted than simply immediately lifting the sanctions, but then again you might be just as much at fault, because apparently an IP editor has been trying to goad Wtshymanski into violating their restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not me. I have had no interaction with Wtshymanski for well over a year (apart from placing the required ANI notice on his talk page). Also forgive me but I have had to make this post from an alternative platform because the ANI page refuses to update on my regular PC. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (AKA 212.183.128.252)

The IP who was reverted for their error went to 3RR to push an unsourced and incorrect change, in quite a proscriptive form, "properly speaking, a battery consists of two or more cells". This is simply wrong (1 cell is still a battery), especially when stated so firmly. So whoever reverts it, that's not a statement that belongs in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Before considering a reduction in restrictions, please look at the pattern of behavior here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

Some of the above incidents that should have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so Wtshymanski's block log does not tell the whole story.

Whenever a line is drawn that Wtshymanski is not supposed to cross, he stands on the line with his toes hanging over it and makes random short dashes over the line and back. This generates endless debates as to whether sanctions are appropriate for the minor infraction.

Also note that whenever Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself or comment at ANI (statistically, this is a great strategy for avoiding sanctions) but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". If he stops editing, please don't fall for this trick again.

Whenever administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his behavior. He has repeatedly responded to warnings on his talk page with a comment that he has been taken to ANI, no action was taken, and therefore his behavior is acceptable. "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[201]

The good news is that Wtshymanski responds well to even short blocks. A 6 or 12-hour block will cause the specific behavior that led to the block to stop for many months and even years. The other good news is that the vast majority of the time he does really good work, and we have a shortage of skilled engineers who can detect problems in highly technical engineering articles. The bad news is that every so often Wtshymanski pushes the engineering equivalent of fringe theories and pseudoscience, and in such cases he refuses to accept any feedback from the other skilled engineers who are working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of those come from before -- some long before -- the restriction was put in place. Wtshymanski technically violated his ban twice, in a benign manner that others agree with on the substance, but thee also got in fights with IP editors and new editors as four years before the ban was put in place and managed to avoid restrictions because they were right on the substance then as well. Per what the IP said above, technically it would be impossible for a dozen instances of violating the ban to have already gone unnoticed, because they've only been actively editing for a few weeks. Retroactively blocking Wtshymanski for an edit they made back in 2011, because it my have been in violation of a restriction placed in 2015, even for only a few hours, is a terrible idea. I don't know if it was your intention -- I actually doubt it was -- but I know for a fact that there are contributors on ANI who actively try to enforce restrictions ex post facto, and I can't shake the feeling that some of them get their way, so even accidentally giving them their way here would be a disastrous misstep. And fourteen threads on multiple forums (only six on ANI) over more than half a decade is pretty average, and possibly below average for someone who's made on average around 13 edits a day for over a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Where has anyone suggested that Wtshymanski be blocked for an edit made in 2011? Guy has provided some context but that is basically all. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I specifically recommended that Wtshymanski not be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but at least one IP editor is requesting thus, and taking a rather cloak-and-dagger approach to it; posting links to discussions from five years ago may not muddy the waters any further, but it hardly helps the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. My "posting links to discussions from five years ago" helps the situation a lot. This is a case of long-term behavior, and the fact that he was doing the same thing five or even ten years ago is extremely relevant. I presented the following context:

• Wtshymanski does a lot of good work and should be retained if at all possible.
• Wtshymanski is usually (but not always) right when it comes to questions involving engineering and technology.
• Wtshymanski often ends up battling IPs and newly-registered users who are pushing engineering pseudoscience, often for commercial reasons.
• Wtshymanski exhibits long-term problematic behavior and will not collaborate with other established Wikipedia editors who have technical skills.
• Wtshymanski (unlike most editors who end up at ANI) is extremely responsive to sanctions, and a very short block usually puts an end to the particular behavior being addressed.

This is context that will help any administrator who decides to deal with this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• As a sometime critic of WTS, I looked at the two WTS diffs in the original report. The first one was a straightforward vandalism revert that nobody should get worked up about. The second was more problematic but should have been discussed with WTS before bringing it here. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a recent recurring issue, the report and its followup came across as axe-grinding, as per Andy Dingley. I think an admin should leave WTS a talk message linking the second diff and asking him to be more careful, but more immediate action against WTS is not needed. The batteries/cells thing should be discussed on the article talk page. The reporting IP's style also reminds me of a certain someone but I'll leave any decisions about that to others. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove the restriction Because frankly, it's ambiguous and can be wikilawyered to death and has no teeth at all - as evidenced here. What's the use of a ban on reverting IP edits if we're not going to enforce it? Take of off, let WTS go willy nilly all over the project, and let's just look the other direction because, once again, productive editors are above community critique. Save us the ANI discussions for a worthless ban and just take it off (I'm being sarcastic and serious at the same time, get rid of it).--v/r - TP 06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the fact that no administrator seems to be willing to even caution Wtshymanski when he violates this, and the easily-verifiable fact that Wtshymanski consistently interprets administrator inaction as permission, the restriction has already been effectively removed. We might as well make it official so nobody wastes any effort reporting future violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan and WP:CIR issues

This is a report concerning the user MaranoFan, whom after the emergence of several incidents on Wikipedia, I have come to determine has WP:CIR issues. Understandably, one may think that I am being unduly harsh, but here is my evidence which suggests that this is the case. Please note that I may shorten the user's name at times to "Marano" or "MF" throughout this filing.

1. At Talk That Talk (Rihanna song): MaranoFan removed content from the article which was actually present at the time it was nominated for Featured Article status in September 2013. The explanation was that the Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper, was an unreliable source. Had this information and its source been contentious, it would have been removed prior to achieving its high standard award. However, what Marano had failed to realise was that the Daily Mail can be used as a source for musical reviews - see here. Furthermore, this negative review, carried out by a DM journalist, is needed to achieve a balanced viewpoint on the article.
2. Following this, MF then proceeded to continue with their removal of several sources from the article Love Me Like You; difference between revisions here. The same behaviour was demonstrated here, here, and here. Another user, Snuggums, told MaranoFan later that HitFix was indeed a reliable source here.
3. The aforementioned reversions actually appear to be an attempt to WP:HOUND the user Calvin999; the sources were initially added by him. I also see passive-aggressive attempts to WP:HOUND the user Winkelvi, such as through the giving of barnstars to editors whom they had ostensibly never had interactions with before, and also who had been in disagreement with WV before here. The statement "I don't think we have ever interacted on wiki before" is incorrect, as MF had interacted with this user on their talk page previously in regards to an issue with an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Here.
4. Furthermore, this non-AGF edit summary calls Calvin999 a vandal, something which he is most definitely not; he has been on Wikipedia for over six years.
5. Finally, MaranoFan recently requested autopatrolled rights. In their reason for requesting these rights, MaranoFan said: "[It] would be REALLY helpful in creating articles." - diff here However, WP:AUTOPAT does not help one in the creation of articles. It was evident that MF had failed to read the aforementioned page on the user right, and another editor had pointed this out on the WP:PERM page - diff here.

Also note: There's also this GA nomination. MaranoFan had nominated this article for GA when they had not edited it for weeks - they also had not met the improvement criteria issued in the previous GA nom which had failed. Calvin further addressed the failed GA at User talk:Carbrera. When MaranoFan decided to notify Tomica of the situation, and even when asked by him to stop, Marano carried on - difference between revisions here.

Whilst I have time to do this, I'll add: Polemic vios by MF here and here. In one of these revisions, I am referred to as a "vandal", as MF had previously referred to Calvin. I, for one, have never vandalised Wikipedia, and this is therefore a baseless accusation, not to mention the fact that it seems they are unaware of the definition for "vandal", further demonstrating their incompetence as an editor.

Overall, I feel as if I can no longer assume that this editor is contributing in good faith in any way whatsoever. When a long-term editor fails to understand key policies, and is harassing other editors, I can only assume that there are WP:CIR issues involved. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Ches

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

---

Having reviewed this report (which demonstrates that Ches does not even understand WP:CIR or WP:AGF) and the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_proposal:_block_for_MaranoFan spectacular time wasting failure by Ches to get the same editor blocked above, it is evident that Ches is on a quest to drive User:MaranoFan off the project for no good reason. This behavior is harassing another editor and should not be rewarded by more attention at ANi except to look at Ches's behavior.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know the background of this but the first 4 points presented seem legit and the 5th makes an off-topic point. I see no reason to ban Ches for that. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I can't see how Ches should have a WP:BOOMERANG hit them here - as per QEDK, 4 valid points worthy of bringing to the community I feel, and there's no 'driving off the project' going on here I don't think - evidence please. Mike1901 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and condemn this as spurious and tendentious. As some of the complaints contained within the previous thread alluded too were equally legitimate: and it is perhaps slightly unfair to blame Chesnaught555 for that thread, when in fact it was originally proposed *BY ME*... and was supported by other editors too. This will undoubtedly be a case of that rarity in physics and wood-working... the boomerang that itself boomerangs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per QEDK also. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and recommend the proposer withdraw this absurdity. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm going to create a Bingo card for ANI. The first row will have "meritless calls for a boomerang", "accusations of bullying", "166 IP harasses Ricky81682", "Drmies", and "a close is reverted at least three times". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Note I have undone Legacypac's close: if WP:INVOLVED could apply to non-Admins, this would be the money shot. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually you did not, Ches and his proxy did. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well DUH... edit conflict. That was a great close of yours though, really great. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread and was appalled by Legacypc's proposal. May I remind everyone that Ches did in fact not create the idea. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi initially proposed a block for MaranoFan with Ches and I agreeing. I suggested to Ches to create a sub-section for the second proposal in MF's thread. To just blatantly assume that Ches was the initiator was just wrong. Please check your facts straight. I haven't reviewed this thread, but I will once I find the time to do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you both (Callmemirela and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) for clarifying that. Of course, I do accept responsibility for starting the official proposal as such. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So, Callmemirela, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, QEDK, Mike1901, Gamaliel, Hy Brasil, and NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input so far. I am pinging you all as you have all responded to this thread in some way - what do you think of these WP:POLEMIC violations posted after I filed this discussion here and here? As you can see by the diffs, Marano is referring to me as a "vandal" - does this demonstrate incompetence due to the fact that I do not fall under this definition? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of drama going on, and much of it doesn't have an immediately obvious instigator. Part of the problem is that I don't want to spend hours reading through a dozen old conversations to get the full picture, and ANI already has enough people who go off half-cocked. But, yes, I think MaranoFan needs to stop posting polemics and calling people vandals, which is a personal attack. Making lightly-veiled personal attacks in a rant on your user page is a bad idea. It's not going to reduce drama. I don't know what's going on in all this other drama, and I'd rather not dig deeper to find out. My advice is for everyone to just chill out and leave each other alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, NinjaRobotPirate - thanks for your input. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable. Some of his comments seem intended to illicit a negative response. If the pattern continues perhaps re-visit later. Hy Brasil (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Given how you and especially your proxy WV have attacked this editor over and over, I think you are the last editors that should be auditing his edits. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Feudin'

It might be better, in the long run, to community ban a half dozen to a dozen editors, on both sides of this feud, and see if the grownups can claw back some amount of control. Or, setting our sights a little lower, it might at least reduce the average length of ANI by about a third. A lot of the same names keep popping up, either attacking one of the editors in the other clan, or defending their own clan members who are being attacked.

It would be tricky to decide how far down the list of hangers-on to go with the bans, but a couple of good rules of thumb that someone might be a good candidate for banning might be:

• they have commented in this thread, or the Winkelvi thread further up the page, and consider more than one of the other participants a "friend" or an "enemy"
• they have said 'you are banned from my talk page' to more than one person in the last 6 months
• they communicate primarily through templates
• they seem to have an extremely tenuous grasp of the golden rule; indeed, they seem to follow its complete opposite

One approach would an ArbCom case, wherein we try to get all of them banned at once. However, I suspect that many of them would welcome that, as the drama is fun, and it would get derailed. Wide-ranging interaction bans would be too difficult to maintain where there are so many editors involved. Another approach, which I'm considering instigating unilaterally on my own, is to declare an involuntary cease fire, and the next time I see any of these people say anything remotely unkind about any of the others, no matter how justified that particular comment might be, either directly or on their friend's talk pages, no matter how many vandals they report or edits they make or friends they have, no matter how long they've been here, I'll block them for 1 month. And then I'll block anyone on the other side who gloats or gravedances. Until they're all blocked, or until they all stop it. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that, with an exception for user talk pages. If they want to whine and bitch at each other about nothing much they can do so as much as they like on their own talkpages as far as I'm concerned, but when crap like this keeps cropping up on watchlists they're over the line into disruption. I'm more than willing to hand out indefs all around and let all parties compete to write the most convincing {{unblock}}; this is possibly the most ridiculously overblown dispute I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I was around for the Em Dash Wars. This page is supposed to be "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", not "for people to waste other peoples' time whining that someone disagreed with them". ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please unprotect Template:Inflation/UK/dataset

See my edit summary here for why - it needs 2016 adding otherwise pages using {{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} won't work, but I cannae add it due to semi protection n stuff, innit. 86.170.7.13 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

FY2016 is not over yet, why'd 2016 have a calculated inflation rate. Also, the template is designed in such a way that invalid parameters will give you the latest value, so putting {{CURRENTYEAR}} will give us the latest value and works the way intended. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/UK/dataset does, but Template:Inflation produces an error if the parameter is specified and empty, invalid or not within the range from Template:Inflation/UK/startyear to the value in Template:Inflation-year, only giving the latest value if the parameter is not used. The source is measuringworth.com, which says for 2016: "There were errors processing your request: Ending year "2016" is not a year between 1209 and 2015." Peter James (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps the template should be changed so that it accepts one year later than the last? Is there a {{LASTYEAR}} variable (actually where do I go to find all of these variables and maybe add them, I really don't see where any of this is on the front end)? 86.170.7.13 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply use {{Inflation-year|cc}}, it will default to the last known value for that country. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, probable conflict of interest, and for hoaxes

I’m reporting Siredejoinville for disseminating false information, sabotage, and suspected hoaxes. Below some of the articles that he has created and/or expanded:

Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja makes no sense whatsoever. The titles held by members of this family are or could be included in the respective articles on the individuals and/or in the umbrella article, House of Borgia. What the user is trying to do is to invalidate the transmission of these titles or the fact that some are now extinct, to claim that these titles should have been passed on to a Juan de Borja Matheus and that now the rightful heir is Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón. Although I’m not reporting this because of socking concerns, it is quite revealing that the name of the supposed heir to these titles is quite similar (embellished with high-falutin surnames) to that of Ruiz-Mariño, a user who was blocked, for being a suspected puppet of Siredejoinville, the same user who has been creating or expanding articles created by the former.

The other articles which he has created or edited are: Francisco Mariño y Soler; Jerónimo Mariño de Lobeira y Sotomayor; Antonio Mariño de Lobeira y Andrade, Count of Mayalde (I’m currently fixing it); Principality of Tricarico; Marquisate of Lombay; Duke of Valentinois, and lastly, Prince of Squillace which I and another user have fixed but, as you can see in the history, just today he reverted and added info without references (or with primary sources), removing the rightful title holders, etc. He has also created County of San Juan, Marquisate of Santa Rosa, Vicecounty of Casa Romana all of which I suspect are hoaxes since I have been unable to find any supporting reference. Please check the history of these articles and the supposed title-holder and the remarks I left on the discussion page of a couple of these articles.

Titles in Spain are very regulated and transmission, new titles, rehabilitation, etc. must be approved by the Ministry of Justice and published in the BOE (the Official State Gazette) as shown here, where I added the new title-holder and a link to the publication. What this user is doing is very risky and probably illegal; some of these titles have current title-holders who would not be too pleased to see that en.wiki is giving false information. In addition, his competence in the English language is not sufficient as another user pointed out.

For more details, you can check the messages I left at the discussion page of BgWhite: here, here, and here. --Maragm (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Easter126

There is a massive Sockfarm around the Topic Stuart Styron.

In the Table only SUL works fine...

Ulla1956 is allready blocked on en:wp (legal threat), user Patriska2601 Helde43 Schitty666 Schmidtrach2 are bloked od de:wp ((Personal attacks or harassment))

The Easter126 was blocked infinit (Personal attacks or harassment), but the Admin reduces it to three month until jun. I suggest to set it again to infinit, cause this is a Sockpuppet / DUCK Schmitty (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Stuart Styron has come up before, Schmitty. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_.282.29 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Stuart_Styron, you might like to check these out. The Stuart Styron page itself has been salted so nothing much is going to happen there. As it happens, I have an IP on my user page today asking about Stuart Styron, I've not responded yet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2016/04/10#Benutzer:2.243.198.61_.28erl..29_2 Banned for 1day in de:wp. He is trying to stalk me in german wikipedia, look at my userpage and userdisk https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Schmitty&action=history Schmitty (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

His contribs were fully deleted: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Schmitty (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Those were my listings at COIN.
  • User:Fasterthanyou123 self disclosed as Stuart Styron, so a sock of User:Styron111 . Dormant, but both still should be blocked indef for socking/promo only IMHO, plus this widespread abuse from a big sockfarm.
  • User:Flashfox7 account name appears to be a play on my account name, and a clear sock. Dormant but should be blocked. Widefox; talk 09:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged COI on the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher

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

---

Bilby, an editor, has completedly removed factual information regarding this topic (a book series called the Dresden Files) because of alleged violations of the biographies of living persons policies.

It is obvious that a fictional book series is not a biography of a living person. Thus, it would be a false reason for removing factual content and then protecting the page from editing.

Moreover, it has been reported on the reddit channel that Bilby is working at the behest of public relations/press agents of the book series, the Dresden Files. [202] According to multiple reddit users, Bilby was promised an autographed advanced copy of the upcoming book, Peace Talks, as well as inclusion in the book series beta reader program.

Here is the relevant page re: the Dresden Files: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC))))

Nor was this the only protection/reversion made by Bilby as part of his financial incentive promised by the public relations/press agents for the book.

Bilby made numerous attempts to do the same as to the page of Jim Butcher. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dresden_Files&action=history (cur | prev) 07:16, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,576 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "The Dresden Files": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 07:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)))) (cur | prev) 07:15, 10 April 2016‎ Bilby (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,576 bytes) (-2,821)‎ . . (rv - BLP concerns.)

There is simply no reason to blanket remove factual information. For example, the page acknowledges that Jim Butcher has one son but does not mention a wife.

It is therefore factual to post a fact regarding the son's mother, whether she is still married or divorced. There is no reason for Bilby to delete references to Butcher's divorce. Considering that Butcher's press agent, Priscilla Spencer, has publically posted Butcher's proposal to a new girlfriend [203], there is no reason to delete this fact.

Bilby needs a reminder that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to participate in censorship (similar to the actions of the moderators at sub-reddit /r/dresdenfiles) and even more inappropriate to obtain financial gain for editing on Wikipedia.

Moreover, as to both pages involving the Dresden Files and Jim Butcher, the edits that were removed contained factual references, links to sources, and other supporting facts, including non-copyrighted content from the books themselves. A blanked reversion followed by a protection is not warranted. It constitutes a scrubbing of "bad PR" and that is not the purpose of an public encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.25.33 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Reddit users say it, it must be true. They're never wrong. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, though, here are the BLP violations removed. The content is related to the author (who is a real, living person, therefore WP:BLP applies) and sourced solely to Reddit, Twitter, personal blogs, and forums, falling afoul of WP:USERGENERATED. This isn't censorship, this is pruning completely unreliable sources on a biography. clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, IP, you need to realize Wikipedia does not report the Facts™. We report what reliable sources say, especially when it comes to BLP articles, not what some random on the Internet says, regardless of who they claim to be. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. clpo13_(talk) 20:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:BLP, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. The article may be about the book series, but it includes information about the author. Therefore, BLP applies. Also, there's another relevant quote from that policy page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. clpo13_(talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You realize that it's a hopeless case, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh. clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing "inappropriate" about redacting and removing unsourced and poorly sourced claims about a living person, particularly those with derogatory intent or imputations. Given that literally every link there was to Reddit or another user forum, I think Bilby's actions were entirely appropriate. It is not "censorship" to make sure our articles are properly sourced. On the other hand, you have made entirely unsupported claims about an editor's motivations when their actions demonstrate nothing more than a determination to enforce our policy on content about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) ;-)

I looked through the changes and can confirm that Bilby correctly removed things that was in violation of WP:BLP, WP:RS and also WP:UNDUE and simply not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is anything like this edit, then Bilby was very much justified in removing it. Not only was it negative information directed at a BLP, it was not backed by a single reliable source, instead it revolved entirely around a series of Reddit posts and blog posts. Our WP:BLP is very strict here that any information relating to a BLP must be cited to reliable sources, especially if it is negative. —Farix (t | c) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Reddit issue is irrelevant unless reliable sources report on it. Also, as Clpo13 stated above Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons applies across the entire Wikipedia space, including talk pages, not just to article about the particular individual. If you keep trying to spread these claims without the proper reliable sourcing, you will eventually find your editing privileges revoked. —Farix (t | c) 21:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I think our I.P friend may have tried to | out Bilby in this message - check the edit summary. Not a real bright idea. KoshVorlon 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP tried to readd the info on this page again, which I removed and may require oversight if it is an attempt at outing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My New Question That Was Deleted, removing the alleged self-published name anyway

RM This information was rev-del'd on article pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Time to block this IP? (S)he clearly isn't listening to anything anyone is saying. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IP hopping troll

86.187.170.157 is the latest IP of the user described here Eik Corell (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted and watching. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reporting User HunteWinchester123 due to multiple vandalism editions

This user HunteWinchester123 has been reverting editions without any explanation just because he believes I have edited too much other pages he is probably taking this too serious but he must be jealously just because of the editions I have warn him for 5 times and he persists with his irrelevant editions that are being: deleting information without any explanation from Wikipedia page Maryse Ouellet, adding unnecessary images as the article has too many, re-adding irrelevant sources and unreliable ones, and changing dates. This has became so annoying due to the fact I need to re-edit them to be correctly fit, so I ask for this reporting due that this is becoming so annoy. Thanks.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 6:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

• What I see is two editors bickering, neither one of them explaining very well or in coherent English what they're doing. I also see 57k on a glamour model/rassler, though I'm happy to see great concern over which original researcher gets the moves right. I'm glad wrestling is real. You two, try to talk it out on the talk page, and stop referring to edits you disagree with as "vandalism". Drmies (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • However, I'm trying to make a call for an stop for this HunteWinchester123 user, he had reverted editions without explanations, all he wants is to re-edit the page until he gets what he wants, as I have told you this is becoming so annoying it is incredible how he just reverted the editions because he believes I'm taking advantage in every female wrestler of WWE company, I just want some kind of lesson for him or just a little block because this really needs to stop right know, and also I don't see what wrestling moves need to be in this case If we are talking of a current vandalism case this is why I'm coming to you. Thanks and I wait for an answer and stop for this case.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 7:10, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
    • Additionally the edits I have done are already revised even because he re-adds unreliable and death sources, I don't disagree with editions I don't like are because they are bad as they have been revised and deletes information without any explanation.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 7:13, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • I really don't understand what you are saying or why anything here is a. a matter that a. requires administrator intervention because b. it's about content. That's the answer, and it is also, as far as I'm concerned, a "stop for this case". But I invite other editors and admins to have a quick look here to see what I missed. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Hopefully there is no confusion over my edit's and the edit's of the reported user. Quickly off-topic, my edits were not original research and were simply removal of false info misrepresented from a source that had no mention of the given info. The dispute over moves were discussed on my talk page and are now resolved. - Now, as for HunteWinchester123, the edits really aren't vandalism. It simply looks like both users have to look at WP:OWN and WP:REVTALK, as well as what is NOT vandalism, because all I see from the edit summaries are rarely explanations for their edits and are simply reverting edits that they disagree with/are different from their own. Sekyaw (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
          • First, I want to thank Sekyaw and Drmies for being impartial. Second, I edit Maryse's page for years, longer than TheBellaTwins1445 have an account here, she just started editing because Maryse returned to WWE. TheBellaTwins1445 is monopolizing all wrestling pages, she reverses all the edits, she has some mental problem thinking that is the owner of the page (she needs medical consultation). I didn't remove anything from the pages, you can see in history of the pages that I just add new content. She remove information, images and never explains her edits. I already sent messages for her asking why she does it, but she never answered me. I don't want a war, I'm a peaceful person, I would like her to stop it. She has warnings about his behavior on wikipedia, I don't. So you know who is wrong (Sorry by my english, but I guess you know what I'm saying). -- HunteWinchester123 (Discussion)
            • Ok firstly I'm not in any kind of mental problem OK?, second I'm not trying to edit pages and say I'm the owner of them and you know what, I don't seriously think that the fact you have being editing the page before me needs to matter here because Wikipedia is free and you can edit what ever you want at the time you want, I have being reverting your editions due to the fact they are being unuseful at reverting the edition I have did all you do is re-add images that are not useful for the article it has too many of them and also you put unreliable sources that are being death and ones that are not even useful for the information as matter of fact being Twitter ones some sources have being taken down and some of them are just death and each time I take off them all you do is revert and revert and revert them all I want is a stop on your irrelevant editions as it is so annoying re-change the page each day this is becoming an editing war and I seriously want this to stop !!! So what you think?TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 3:37, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Antonio J. De Rosenzweig

I'm requesting assistance for a promotional vehicle in a biography's clothing. This has twice been nominated for speedy deletion, and I prodded it as well, and all templates have been removed. Ostensibly a bio, it's really an unreferenced press release on behalf of the subject's Rosenzweig Disaster Magnitude Scale, created by a WP:SPA. The article's author has admitted at the article talk page and at their own talk page that there are no reliable sources to support the content--this is the very definition of a spamicle, and I've been frustrated in attempts to have this considered for deletion. Since I can't start an AfD, I'm asking someone else to have a look. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I nominated the article at AfD per Atlantic306's suggestion in the edit history, though I notice it was nominated for speedy again by EvergreenFir while I was preparing my nomination. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll comment at the AfD. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Longfamily417

This report is about the conduct of User:Longfamily417 concerning Draft:SageTea. This draft was submitted nine times to Articles for Creation within 36 hours by the owner of the company, who is apparently in a great hurry to obtain free advertising in Wikipedia for his company, and who has repeatedly made minor changes to the draft without addressing substantive issues. The author was repeatedly cautioned to stop resubmitting the draft tendentiously, and was advised to request comments at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, but persisted in resubmitting. Finally one of the reviewers nominated the draft for Miscellany for Deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea. At this point (and only at this point), the author stated that he would step aside from editing and resubmitting the draft, but would ask another editor, a former employee of the company, to take responsibility. That is a clear case of attempting to game the system.

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASageTea&type=revision&diff=714487940&oldid=714486700 the author included text of a granted patent that was copyrighted by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Longfamily417 may have a valid argument for notability, which doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem. The problem is not so much the company or the draft or the notability issue. The problem is a disruptive single-purpose account who will stop at nothing to get his free advertising. It is clear now that the real answer is not whether to delete the draft, but whether to delete (or sanction) the editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The following edit was made to my talk page, only after the eighth submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=714535620&oldid=714477850 I may be cynical (or WP:AGF really may be a suicide pact that I am not honoring), but I can't accept the good faith of a statement that my advice is appreciated, when my advice to ask for advice at the Teahouse was ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad Topic-Ban

I propose that User:Longfamily417 be topic-banned from SageTea, broadly construed, and from any other topic in which the editor has any sort of conflict of interest. COI editing in draft space is not normally considered forbidden by policy because the draft is not outward-facing, is subject to review, and may be edited to neutralize it by reviewers and other editors. However, in this case, Longfamily417 is pursuing a COI agenda so aggressively that only a topic-ban will prevent further disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The nominator obviously supports his nomination, and is already counted in. WannaBeEditor (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unnecessary point, actually! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the problem. They've removed the offending content, they've made a COI statement, they've tried to get outside help in good faith. They've agreed with removals of content. They're trying to comply with our policies; and they've tried to comply with everything being said to them. I don't see what has made you rush over to ANI on this topic. What, exactly, are they doing that is disruptive?--v/r - TP 03:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support They're clearly only here to advertise, so topic ban seems okay. However, I think indefinitely blocking as not here to contribute positively would be more appropriate. Also, he's said he's getting someone else to write the article for him, so I guess the topic ban should cover that too? Joseph2302 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I propose we topic ban Dweepsteeple too, since they created SageTea in main space, and are clearly the person that the above CEO said he was going to get to work on the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The above is presumably intended to refer to DweepSteeple rather than the non-existant Dweepsteeple. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the characterization of myself as "aggressive", I don't share that view. I work very hard on everything I do, and usually put in a 16 hour day, including looking after my 3 kids and running a business with 22 employees. I have been on Wikipedia for all of 2 days, and felt I was putting my time in last weekend, to make the article as best I could. Naturally, being the first submission, I had a lot of feedback, and responded quickly out of respect for the time given by the editors. My intention was not to be aggressive - it was about being timely.

I have done my best to take a step back from being involved in the article. As a CEO, I certainly understand the dangers of conflict of interest. That said, once disclosed, the problem becomes manageable, as long as it is done carefully. I fully recognize this take the guidance of others. I am refraining from comment or involvement in the article, unless asked.

In terms of the statement "getting someone else to write the article for him" I would not say that is how I communicated with the current submitter. Factually, he was a former employee of SageTea, a temporary student who is no longer with the company and left on good terms. He is also bright, and someone I don't talk with very often. What I did say is that he is free to put the article into his own words, and write about the topic however he wants. That said, his comment back to me was that the folks on Wikipedia were very aggressive. So I actually had to apologize to him for that. I think the point here is that I communicated with him about the idea. What I did not do is force him or make any other demand, just passed on the idea. Where it goes after this is out of my hands.

I am the inventor of the patent and the CEO of the company. If anyone wants to ask me about that one topic, I am the expert and willing to answer any questions. If I am not asked, then at this point I have nothing to say. I think that is best with respect to the COI question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have admin glasses to see the deleted article in mainspace. Does it read almost the same as the current version in draft space? If so, quack, quack. Does it pass the duck test, in which case we are not just dealing with tendentious and disruptive editing, but sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I has the admin glasses and the two articles have most of the same content. The deleted article has some additional technical jargon but the puffery is identical. If DweepSteeple isn't a sock, he's a meatpuppet. The claims of 'I just passed on the idea' are disingenous at best. Katie^talk 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I'm not opposed to a block but I'm not convinced there is need. The topic ban seems sufficiently broad. Most likely it'll just means the editor stops editing or is blocked because they don't stop and continue to make COI edits. There is a small chance they'll edit other articles, hopefully productively. While there is also a small chance their editing won't be productive or they'll test the boundaries, the highly narrow focus of their editing thus far suggests to me this is fairly unlikely and we can probably easily deal with it if it does happen. Based on the above comments of meat at a minimum, I suggest DweepSteeple also be topic banned. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

SageTea article

A point noted above: there is a draft, Draft:SageTea, which is at Mfd, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea, as promotion of a non-notable topic. The mainspace article appears to have been created as an end-run around that. Since the bar for inclusion in mainspace is higher than that in Draft and the mainspace article had all the same issues identified in the Draft (it was a copy-paste, in fact), I have removed the main space article pending outcome of the Draft MfD. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sicilian IP disruption in music articles

There's a persistent person from Sicily who is making lots of unreferenced changes to music articles, mixed with a few obvious falsehoods. The most recent involved IPs are as follows:

• 82.51.32.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.61.34.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.53.4.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.30.91.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.56.98.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 79.27.106.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy persists in changing to wrong credits in a few song articles, for instance "Go Away Little Girl"[204][205][206][207][208][209][210] and "To Love A Child."[211][212]

A previous notice about this guy was archived without any discussion: Sicilian IPs pushing Durium Records, Nikka Costa, inserting falsehoods globally. That discussion had a lot more detail about the person's disruption. KrakatoaKatie blocked 82.61.34.110 shortly after the March 19 notice. Can we do something stronger to stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He has been warned, and blocked, multiple times so I will block the latest IP. However, he is using Telecom Italia dynamic IPs so will simply pop up on another. A range block is out of the question, the IP addresses are too scattered. We do have the option of semi-protection or pc1. As "Go Away Little Girl" has been suffering since the first week of March and the disruption has continued after a one-week protection, I'll semi-protect it for a longer period. I am not sure if an edit filter would help, perhaps others might comment? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've created a page to start bringing together reports, IPs, article affected and action taken at User:Malcolmxl5/Sicilian_IPs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish we could globally block this guy. I've been going around to different language wikis to try and counter him, and I've contacted the most effective admin who is quick to recognize, revert and block this guy on Italian-language Wikipedia.[213] Let's see what K'n-yan says about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly prolific. There are a few articles that he edits more than others, "Go Away Little Girl", United Artists Records and "Sleep Walk", for example. If he pops up at those, I'll semi-protect them (or you can request s-p at RfPP). Being quick to recognize him will be key, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Phd8511 using edit summaries to carry a grudge a launch personal attacks

Phd8511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

HMS Ajax (S125), the page for a Royal Navy Astute-class submarine, was created in early 2011. In December 2015, Phd8511 began to contest the name of the article, claiming the boat had not yet been named and requested it be changed to "Boat 7". Sources have been provided that support both "Ajax" and "Boat 7". Attempts at discussion on the both the article talk page and the talk page at Talk:Astute-class submarine did not achieve any consensus. Phd8511's demeanor and posting style was somewhat hostile and aggressive. I brought the issue to the community at both WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST, but there was still no support to change the name. My view is that sources support the current name and should that name change, we can easily change the article to match.

Edit summaries

Phd8511 has a history of expressing himself colorfully though edit summaries, but has used them for personal attacks and to carry a grudge for weeks and weeks after the issue. This has continued with edits and articles that have nothing to do with the naming dispute or even the Ajax page. The following are the most recent of the edit summaries in question, (though there is more if you go farther back).

(Diff with summary - article - date);

• fix it HMS Ajax lovers - Zumwalt-class destroyer, April 11
• HMS Ajax pundits never change - Royal Navy, April 8
• can i not add this word? - HMS Ajax (S125), April 7
• HMS Ajax pundits should fix this - Chiefs of Staff Committee, April 6
• In case the HMS Ajax pundits argue - Military of the Falkland Islands, April 3
• fix it Wiki gods - Aircraft Ship Integrated Secure and Traverse, March 31
• just in case people like you know who reverts - Quartermaster-General to the Forces, March 24
• Why HMS Ajax lover TheWolfChild never edit? - List of submarine classes of the Royal Navy, March 24
• fix it HMS Ajax lovers - M6 mortar, March 21
• I will show you what it is named - HMS Ajax (S125), March 18
• The point is you dont get it you HMS Ajax fetish lover - User talk:Phd8511, March 18
• fix it wikigods instead of saying incorrect stuff about Boat 7 - Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, February 19
• no no no no no. See My evidence - Astute-class submarine, February 18
• stick to real facts not yourselves - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18
• simple bloody punctuation - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18
• stick to the facts and DO USE WEBARCHIVES - HMS Ajax (S125), February 18

This behaviour has continued, despite numerous warnings, seen here, here, here and here.

There has also been numerous attempts to discuss Phd8511's hostile behaviour with him, seen here (from myself), here (from User:CrackDragon) and here (from User:Antiochus the Great).

Perhaps it's time for some administrative attention. - ^theWOLFchild 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. I left a "final warning". If that doesn't work, report again; I agree that this behavior is very blockable. I have not looked at possible edit warring, but that may be a problem too. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: But the 4 other warnings had zero effect, as well as the multiple attempts to discuss this user's behaviour with him, some of which were also dismissed with hostile edit summaries. I think something more definitive is called for here, to send a clear message and protect the project from further disruption. - ^theWOLFchild 20:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, but this is what I think is best for now. If it doesn't help we can still block, but if the person is smart they'll stop. You are welcome to let this run for a while and see if other admins are willing to push the button right now. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Wwallacee

User:Wwallacee took exception to an edit of mine, and has now posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". See Special:Contributions/Wwallacee. I need somebody to stop him and roll back his edits, please. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The diffs are easy enough to find, it says "Warning about user Scolaire" in every edit summary. 22 and counting... - ^theWOLFchild 09:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I object to this statement - there is a history of edits by user Scolaire, multiple edits to a number of different pages, all with the common denominator of removing material rather than improving it. Moreover, the choice material selected for removal often seems to be politically motivated. I view this as private and politically-motivated censorship.Wwallacee (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content is no different from addition, as far as policy goes. Your "warning" posts are unambiguously unacceptable, per WP:NPA. Just so you know, virtually every editor who asserts "censorship" as part of a content dispute, turns out to be the one pushing an agenda. Best to WP:AGF and ask about the basis for the edits, rather than start flinging accusations around. The edit Scolaire notes above is entirely appropriate. There is a link in the body of the article, which is where this should go. Calling out a single incident related to the Troubles is POV in the context of someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. You can settle the content dispute on Talk, but if you continue in your current vein I think you will end up topic-banned or blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I repeat that this dispute is not about user Scolaire's edit to the Francis Vane page: my objection is to a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so. I first became aware of this due to Scolaire's edits to the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, which I had done a lot of work on and was monitoring. Scolaire cut a number of passages which I introduced in the course of a big overhaul of the page. During this overhaul I rechecked all the previously existent references, improved formatting, and added new content, also with references. Rather than improve upon these edits, Scolaire simply removed sections that displeased him. When I went to the Talk page, I discovered that Scolaire had even "casually suggested" cutting the entire section I had been working on. This section had to do with political material and I naturally suspected that the proposed cut might have a political motive. I decided to look up Scolaire's contributions history, and there I discovered that in the past month or so, he has made numerous edits to pages having to do with the Easter 1916 rising in Ireland. For instance, he altered the following Wikipedia pages: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The history pages for those pages will show the nature of his changes. In most cases his edits consisted of removing material contributed by other editors, often with technical and legalistic justifications. But when the pattern of such quibbling edits is examined, it becomes clear that there is more going on here than just a very rule-conscious editor. At minimum Scolaire's recent activity on Irish-related pages has not been contributing positively to Wikipedia.Wwallacee (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"a pattern of edits made by him to numerous pages in the past month or so" = he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes; "I had done a lot of work on and was monitorin" = careful- you wouldn't want to suggest WP:OWNership; and all things being equal, you will have to provide diffs to back up your complaint. Just vaguely pointing in the direction of an article and saying 'he changed it' = not sufficient. As frankly, that's what we're here for. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly not suggesting "ownership", I am just relating the story of how I came into awareness of Scolaire's pattern of activity. If you look at the History and Talk pages to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington it will be apparent that I have not attempted ownership of the page, in spite of what the language of my previous comment may have suggested to you. Furthermore, my intention in posting messages to the various talk pages was not to make a "personal attack" but to warn other users who were editing those pages to look out for this pattern of aggressive edits. If you remove the messages I put on the Talk pages (as user JzG has now done), and require me to provide "diffs" for the dozens of edits where Scolaire has exerted his pernicious influence, then you are in effect favoring a strategy of "ownership", namely where a user such as Scolaire assumes ownership by simply cutting other users' contributions in small but obsessive edits over a period of time. The work of individual users who do have good faith is left unprotected under that scenario, which favors only the aggressive persistence of a politically-motivated person.Wwallacee (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Do you have links? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to see some diffs.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Without links to specific examples of what you allege, it is difficult to ascertain the veracity of your complaint. In the links you do provide, I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion. However, your placement of "warnings" is a bit problematic. Might I suggest, as long as their are no follow-up comments from other editors on those talk pages, that you self-revert those? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can look at the following links: Arthur Griffith, Easter Rising, Sinn Féin, History of Sinn Féin, The Troubles, Constance Markievicz, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas Kent, Partition of Ireland, James Connolly, Proclamation of the Irish Republic, Irish War of Independence, Fenian Rising, Republic of Ireland, Fianna Éireann, Paul Murphy (Irish politician). The History pages and Talk pages of those pages will show the pattern of activity I am talking about, namely dozens of small cuts without positive contributions. I understand now that this is referred to in Wikipedia's rules as disruptive editing.Wwallacee (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are asking for diffs, not 50 articles that we have to spend hours searching thru.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I said links, I should have been specific that I meant links to diffs. I already looked at several edits on several of those articles, and didn't see anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I see an issue. Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood

User:Davey2010 has posted to my user talk page accusing me of disruptive editing and stating that I will be blocked if I do it again [214]. The issue stems from a reversion I did of an edit to the page by User:CDRL102 in which they said that a statement was an opinion. In reality the statement was referenced and was a matter of established fact. I explained my reversion substantially on the Clarawood talk page however this page was changed by Davey2010 and the sections deleted [215] [216]. Instead of taking my comment and explanation on board the immediate reaction from Davey2010 and CDRL102 was to accuse me of ownership and inexperience. Davey2010 has previously stated to me that there are Guidelines and Policies on Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow them and anything I have done has been referenced to such. Davey2010 however, admin or not, seems to have the attitude that he can do anything he wants. This is demonstrated by the original AfD he and CDRL102 raised for Clarawood which was closed after approx 1 hour and which was reinstated after a Deletion Review [217] [218]. In other words he has a pattern of what could be termed disruptive behaviour himself and deliberate ignorance of Guidelines and Policies. I am being accused of not being willing to work collaboratively and unreasonable "ownership" style behaviour concerning the page Clarawood. As I have previously argued in the AfD, talk pages and the Deletion Review this is not the case and there are very substantial references on the page and I have encouraged and asked for any problems others have with it to discuss them particularly on the talk page. The edit by CDRL102 demonstrates the importance of this as they were factually wrong. I have also been accused of reverting every edit anyone makes. This is also quite simply not true, but I have reverted non-constructive edits and explained why I did so. I have followed process in anything I have done here, I have not deleted other people's comments or blankly edited fully referenced material and I have not acted outside normal process and policy. Davey2010 however has done these things and I feel that it would be pointless and impossible to have a rational discussion with him on his talk page which is why I am raising this ANI instead. I have no problem with constructive edits to any page, that is what a collaborative encyclopaedia is about, however I think I am entirely correct when I say that edits must actually be constructive and based on fact and if they are not then it is fair to revert them. I think I am also entirely correct to say that Davey2010's behaviour has not been perfect and I hope this can be looked into Clarawood123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If he tried to do anything to improve that article, then more power to him! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Yep I gave them a strong warning as they've heavily been trying to "promote" the article and clearly do have OWNership issues with it,

Yep I've wiped their article talkpage posts as it was more or less moans over reverts and some were unrelated to the article - I never ever do this however in this case filling the talkpage up with crap isn't ideal either -Most of it belonged on a user talkpage,

Yep I did move the article to a sandbox as CDRL was more than happy to work on it although it was reverted by Sandstein as there wasn't really any consensus at DRV for my actions,

So all in all I believe my actions overall have been okay and the only person that should be blocked is Clarawood123 for their huge amounts of disruption not only on the article but also on the DRV and the AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh and I'm not an admin ..... thank the lord , –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to edit this page, most of my edits were reverted. It was then userfied to me to improve the quality, once it was put back into Clarawood, User:Clarawood123 deleted my revision and copied and pasted his last edited revision before it was userfied. Since then, I didn't try to restore some of my improvements as I'm not going to waste my time and have it reverted again, although I did try to edit the opening paragraph, which surprise surprise was reverted. So User:Clarawood123 seems to have an Ownership Issue. CDRL102 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban/WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123

It's pretty obvious that User:Clarawood123 has an WP:Ownership problem (I'd also point out that they're a WP:SPA and most probably have a WP:COI). I suggest this be boomeranged back to them with either a straight ban or at least a topic ban with a forced name change.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or ban as proposer. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support either, as per the WP:OWN issue- also noting the sheer amount of different editors' time and effort that s/he has wasted, which could have been spent doing better things. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Many editors are trying to improve the article and they're simply reverting everyone and everything, Personally I don't think even a long block would change their ways so personally think they should be indeffed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - ownership and competence issues are transparent. Not welcome here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I think going right to site ban is over the top. Perhaps a 6 month topic ban, to give this editor an opportunity to demonstrate they can learn the site's editing guidelines and contribute effectively to other areas of the project. Either we gain a productive editor, or they blow it and then they get a site ban. - ^theWOLFchild 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, on this wiki please log in for a support/oppose-statement, it simplifies the evaluation for counters (of course it's anyway no vote.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234

Could an admin please have a quiet word with User:Sportsfan 1234 to explain that not only admins may remove speedy deletion templates from articles, and that the response to any disagreement should be to discuss the issue rather than edit-war over the tag? The article concerned is Crazy Eyes Crew (history). I have tried disussing this on the editor's talk page but the only response has been to blank my messages and to issue me with a level 4 vandalism warning, so it seems that this editor will only take notice of an admin. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, and I am an admin. The article was ineligible for A7 speedy deletion. Per policy "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." "Credible claim of significance or importance" is as liberally applied as possible; there are claims of particpation in championships. Please note that this removal of the A7 tag does not mean the article should not be deleted. Instead, deletion should be handled through WP:AFD or WP:PROD instead. It is merely not eligible for speedy deletion and should have such claims discussed first. --Jayron32 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Profanity on Talk:Kanye West

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

---

Admins, would you please consider making this edit invisible? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanye_West&oldid=714713748

Peaceray (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: Someone is probably going to criticise/attack/mock you for posting this here. You can request revision deletion here or message an admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder:, thank you! After 6 years & 12,000+ edits, still learning ... Peaceray (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceray: No problems. Glad to see it has been removed now. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Just another case of schoolkid vandalism. Nothing worth RevDeling or Oversighting. I see similar, perhaps worse, profanity every time I log onto Huggle as a result of my AV work. Again, nothing special. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Some of that is clearly libellous. Swear words aren't worth revdeling obviously. But libel is. AusLondonder (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, AusLondonder - I see your point. I don't think the OP should've drawn attention to this edit, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 You are right about drawing attention which I tried to note in my initial reply to the OP. Many editors aren't aware of the revdel criteria and process though. AusLondonder (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

AusLondonder - fair enough - although it does say in the edit notice for ANI: "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here" in a big red box. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies - much appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

RE: Disruptive Editor - Karst

Hello Administrator. I would like to report a Disruptive Editor I have had continuous problems with the user Karst, as have many other editors: User talk:Wkpe16, User talk:ZachDelRey, User talk:Nuro Dragonfly, User talk:Donottroll... He nominated my old userpage for deletion (Link) when I was drafting in it, instead of just politely informing me that this was against the guideines. More importantly, they frequently replace Up-to-date images for old ones, and deletes cited, valid content, both for no reason. This irritates many editors. Most recently, he caused an edit war on J. Ralph (if you'll please look at the revision history) with Eldorado74, who noticed that I had had trouble with Karst before, and came to me for help: "hello Limehous-0. I am hoping you can help me a problem I am having with the user Karst. I see that you have had major problems with this user as well on your articles. He keeps vandalizing the article on J. Ralph and removing valid info. The article is properly cited from valid external sources yet Karst continues to revert and change relevant, factual information that is properly sourced and cited. Can you help me?" Please see Karst's talk page and read my most recent attempt to politely tell him that he was annoying loads of editors. Also read the other editors posts. Please do not conclude this report is vengeance for my userpage. I make this report to help Eldorado74, and make Wikipedia a better place. Thankyou, and Kind Regards.Limehous-0 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this another WP:SOC of Eldorado74 (talk · contribs)? Keith D (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi This isn't Sock Puppetry by Eldorado. When I used the CandidLibraryEditors Karst repeatedly disrupted my edits. Many other editors can confirm that he disrupts. See my report for their talk pages. Eldorado came to me for help. Karst is now "enlisting editors in an edit war against Eldorado on the article J. Ralph. I do think he needs to be sorted out. Thanks. Limehous-0 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Funny how there's no post on your talk page from Eldorado74 about this issue. Also funny how he couldn't have emailed you because you haven't enabled email in your preferences. Katie^talk 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely some fishy stuff going on. Limehous-0 is a new user with two lifetime edits to actual articles. Here they seem to be removing someone else's barnstar from Karst's talk. Here they add an entire months old conversation back to his talk, supposedly, because they wanted to add their own content. The sock is strong with this one. TimothyJosephWood 19:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Timothy and Katie. If you'll look, on my userpage, A box says "you can find me on discogs too!". following the link, my Discogs profile shows my email. This is how Eldorado contacted me. Also note, my lack of contribs is because I used to use the account CandidLibraryEditors, but swapped; unaware I could have just changed the name. Sorry, but can we get to the matter in hand - Karst's disruptive beahavior! Limehous-0 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Also note, my email uses "Limehouse" and my eBay and Discogs profiles both use "Limehous-0". a sock wouldn't have all this! Limehous-0 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The long post including old content was me trying to talk to Karst and tell him how annoying he was. The old content was "proof". I removed his barnstar, because I no longer thinked he deserved it (and admin wasn't appropriate). Note, I was CandidLibraryEditors when I gave it too him. Limehous-0 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant COIN Thread TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like both Karst and Eldorado74 have passed 3 reverts on J. Ralph so I have given them both warnings. It looks like Lemongirl942 has come on and is contributing to this article and what it really needs now is to have participation from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PopeyetheSailorMan90

This blocked user needs to have their talk page access removed as they are using their user talk page to make threats that they will endlessly edit war and that they will "create as many accounts" as they want. Clearly just here to be disruptive. [219] 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the editor is ranting but is already indefinitely blocked. They are now asking for an unblock on their "regular account" and I'd like to know which account that is so we can see if this is block evasion. So, I'm holding back on withdrawing talk page access right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User black washing the articles

The user 92.106.216.139 is continuously black washing the Kurdish women article. Edits of this user:
Diff [220]: This edit was a clearly against WP:POV.
Diff [221]: Wordpress --> [WP:FAKE].
Diff [222]: Reversed or edited 6 cherry pickings. Check the sources.
Diff [223]: The user changed Sorani speaking Kurds to all Kurds, Iraqi Arabs to all Arabs (Black washing).
A 2014 survey from UNICEF found a 58.5% prevalence of FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan.--> The source doesn't mention anything like that. The source is related to the small survey about two cities, not all Iraqi Kurdistan (Black washing).
Diff [224]: Read the source, it's clearly cherry picking.

The user has added only FGM, honor killing and other negative things to the article. The article is related to the Kurdish women but ~80% is about FGM, honor killing and other crimes. Also, according to another user, this users has involved in mass deletions of sourced contents, offensive edit summaries, disruptive editing and meatpuppetting.-->[225]Ferakp (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)