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

The Banner

Unfortunately, The Banner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has in the past, and also recently, been casting aspersions in the form of unsupported claims of misconduct against me in various areas of Wikipedia, stating that I have a COI, that I add improper sources, etc., which is not the case. This has been an ongoing pattern from the user. The user also performs actions against consensuses that are determined at deletion discussions they initiated, by afterward unilaterally redirecting articles that were closed with a merge result at AfD, without performing any merge of content whatsoever. This comes across as a means to realize their desired result of content removal when articles they nominate are not deleted. The user sometimes continues to do so repeatedly, regardless of consensuses that were determined. The user also has a poor habit of making repeated ad hominen statements that are uncivil and harassing in their overall nature.

I've also noticed a long-term ongoing pattern of sometimes reckless editing by this user in various pageant-related and other articles. The user routinely strips large swaths of content from articles, but this sometimes creates problems. For the record, I'm not against all of their content removal edits, some of which are useful and appropriate, but I often get the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Sometimes it comes across that the user is simply here to remove as much pageant-related content as possible, but this is often performed per their own subjective opinions, rather than based upon guidelines and policies.

Requesting community input regarding these matters. I'm particularly concerned about the casting of aspersions, dishonesty and lying, uncivil and harassing behaviors, and actions the user performs that go against the consensuses of deletion discussions.

1. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
2. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
3. Casting aspersions of COI: diff
4. Casting aspersions of COI and blatant lying and dishonesty at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Diva - 2015

   The Banner: "I have told you before that you have to declare your Conflict of Interest. You are now again filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft to protect an year-article while there is not even a link to a parent article about Miss Diva." (diff)

   "My response: "There is no COI; improving an article is not COI. Here's the edits I have performed: add sources, add more footnotes template with Twinkle, move template, add an image. Please familiarize yourself with the actual COI guideline. None of these edits require sources (should I add more sources to qualify the sources I added, like referencing a reference?) and none constitute "fancruft", not even adding an image. It is sad that your characterization of me as "filling an article with unsourced and irrelevant fancruft" is so dishonest; I guess you'll just say anything regardless of the actual truth of the matter. How disappointing." (diff, and some minor copy edits after this diff)

5. Casting aspersions: diff . The user's wording here falsely suggests that I restored content with "dodgy sources", but the content actually had no sources at all to begin with. I added several reliable sources later.
6. Casting aspersions and false statements: here ("Yes, I know by now that you prefer related sources instead of independent sources or none at all."). My actions in editing the article afterward clearly indicate that this is simply not the truth: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
7. Casting aspersions and false statements: diff ("you often add related sources to prove something ...""). Notice that my actual source additions to the article afterward are entirely contrary to this false statement of adding "related sources" (e.g primary sources), particularly the "often" part): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Of course, the user left their impugning statement on the talk page after all of my edits that utilized reliable sources.
8. Uncivil behavior: A discussion on my talk page, that is now archived here. The user orders me to perform edits or "shut up", makes false, harassing statemets about my editing, and states that a supposed "halfway mess and confusion" was created. No mess or confusion of any sort was created whatsoever. It comes across that the user posts these types of statements in efforts to contiuously mar my reputation, done through the presence of the content regardless of the actual non-validity of it.
9. Performing unilateral actions against consensus at their AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Spain 2004: States that a merge was performed ("merge completed"), but one was never performed (diff), unilaterally redirects again against consensus (diff), and yet again unilaterally redirects against consensus (diff, see this diff following the user's edit for more information). In the first two diffs, the user comes across as attempting to circumvent the consensus at the discussion to get their way, after their desired result of deletion was not realized.
10. Performing unilateral actions against the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World hosts and invited artists: twice redirects without performing any merge (diff, diff), against the consensus and editorial decisions of other users at the AfD discussion. The user again appears to try to get their way when the AfD they created was closed against their desired result of deletion.
11. Reversions that introduced factual errors: blanket reverts swaths of content, creating factual errors, twice in a row: diff, diff. I had to correct this twice: diff, diff. It comes across that the user does not bother reading edit summaries left by other users, and simply comes along and presses the undo button, regardless of consequence. This type of behavior is damaging to the encyclopedia.
12. Blanket removal of properly verified content I added to an article per their subjective opinion of "irrelevant fancruft": diff. Wikipedia content is based upon what reliable sources report, which has more weight compared to subjective opinion. This blanket removal had a poor side effect of removing a reliable source I added to the article that had to be rescued by AnomieBOT (diff). I then restored the content (diff). These types of actions make it difficult to improve articles, because after improvements are performed in accordance with guidelines (e.g. using reliable sources and citations), the user just comes along and presses the undo button, basing the removal upon personal opinion rather than guidelines and policies.
13. Blanket removal of reliable sources in the references section of this article: diff. The edit summary left used a generic copy/paste rationale that did not address this aspect of the content removal. This created unnecessary work in having to restore the valid sources I added to the article, which again, were removed for no logical reason.
14. Removal of sourced content using a generic copy paste rationale that stated in part "WP:OR": diff. The content was all verified with inline citations to a reliable source; as such it's not original research.
15. Casting aspersions and false accusations of my sincere efforts to improve an article being "close to vandalism" and adding "related sources" and "not reliable sources": User talk:The Banner/Archives/2016/January § Miss Earth 2015 I responded with a summary of the wholly reliable sources I added, but the user then continued along the same line, stating, "...you add or defend related sources". I did not add any related sources, nor did I "defend" them. Notice in the article's Revision history circa this time period that I actually removed many unreliable sources from the article after adding reliable ones. It comes across that the user very likely didn't even bother to actually view the sources added to the article, nor noticed my removal of unreliable sources I performed, instead simply sticking to their pattern of making baseless ad hominem false claims. This also comes across as intentional obfuscation, rather than a discussion of facts.
16. Uncivil tone toward another user: diff

More examples of these types of behavior exist, but hopefully this provides an adequate summary of the ongoing pattern of problematic editing and behaviors performed by this user. I have consistently remained calm and civil with this user despite all of this, stating my case in various discussions in a collegial manner, but the user does not tend to act in kind. It would be nice if the user would stop casting aspersions, stop being dishonest, tone-down their rhetoric and abrasive statements and behaviors, and instead try to work in in a collegial manner with others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(Addendum) – Additional evidence of these types of ongoing behavior patterns by the user is located at the following past ANI discussions listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner
2. Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

Mr. North America is very enthusiastic in adding irrelevant info to articles about pageants. He does that so often, that he gives me the idea that he has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. Most recent on Miss World where he ignored the lack of relevant info in the to-be-merged-articles to add a massive load of stuff to the articles. Part of that is "sourced" with photo-sites or galleries, not exactly sources conform WP:RS. Mr. North America has a clear lack of distinction between notable and not-notable, claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website. By and large, this is a good section about his opinions, strengthening my believes: Talk:Miss_World#Merger complete. The Banner talk 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only used one "photo site" in the article, specifically Getty Images, not plural as stated above as "photo sites or galleries". The site is used four times in the article, and is done only when I am unable to find any other sources to verify content. I explained why in part on the article's talk page: diff. Here's a more recent comment: diff. Also, I have not used any "related websites" in the article, as incorrectly accused above. Getty could be considered as somewhat of a primary source in that the photographers were physically at the event, but primary sources are allowed to be used moderately for verification. Getty is not "related" to the Miss World pageant. Getty's images cover a diverse range of topics and are used by reliable newspapers all over the world. Overall, just more inappropriate aspersions (e.g. another baseless COI accusation, "claiming that something is notable when you can prove it with a related website", etc. etc.) I'm not "claiming that something is notable" or making any type of claims at all, I'm verifying Wikipedia content to improve articles for Wikipedia's readers. Other than the four Getty sources, all other sources I added are reliable, secondary sources. Your strange statement above of "... lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" carries no weight; each and every fact in an article does not have to stand up to notability tests, as though if any mention of anything and every snippet of content has to qualify for its own article. This is not how Wikipedia functions. You seem to be confusing verification with topic notability. It appears that the "lack of distinction between notable and not-notable" is solely applicable to yourself, rather than me. All of these aspersions are getting quite old. It needs to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor does a tiny snippet of a source make a subject notable. The Banner talk 19:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the difference between verification and topic notability. Verification of content is a different concept, which is used to confirm that content is accurate. Again, every bit of information in an article does not have to pass WP:N as though if it has to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that everything that is verifiable is automatically notable. At least, that is the way you act. And in the mean time, you just continue with adding irrelevant unsourced info, like this. The Banner talk 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ - I have nothing against The Banner but personally it seems like they want to get rid of every pagent article on the project, I admit about a year or 2 ago I would !vote Delete on every pagent AFD on the basis of this place didn't need them however I begun to realize this was extremely disruptive and goes against what the project is ... which is why I no longer !vote on them, TB however seems to nominate them on a daily basis and without searching for sources (and when sources are provided they refute every single one), and then we have fact they redirect articles even without consensus, Personally I believe TB should be topic-banned from pagents altogether but that's just my honest opinion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD Statistics for User:The Banner. 75.3% is deleted as I had suggested. The rest is kept, still open or merged. The Banner talk 22:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am prepared to stop working on pageant articles. To my opinion, that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, as it also means stopping with hunting down sockpuppeteers/meatpuppeteers and AfD'ing substandard articles. But if that is what the people want, I give in. Good luck with all spam that will be coming. The Banner talk 18:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your editing or nominating of these articles, in fact I agree to a lesser extent with your position on most of the content. The main issue I see is the accusations towards Northamerica of having a COI. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Temporary topic ban? This might work and calm things down. The Banner could work elsewhere, hopefully productively. A temporary break from the subject matter of pageants would allow things to cool down and for perspective to be gained. Say, three to six months? Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both ways? Then I can agree with a three month ban. The Banner talk 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "Both ways?" mean? This thread is about you and your disruptive editing in the topic of pageants. You already agreed a few paragraphs above that you are "prepared to stop working on pageant articles". Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you guys at least take a look at what NorthAmerica1000 what triggered this sequence of events. Admin or not. The Banner talk 18:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, of course it's not a topic-ban proposal for NA1000. That's clear from the wording of my proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from a somewhat involved editor. My involvement comes from the fact that I originally merged the articles into Miss World[1][2][3][4][5] following the various debates that closed as merge. Northamercia1000 reverted some of these which showed up on my alerts, and lead to this conversation and this statement of disapproval. As far as the content aspects go I fall very much in line with The Banner, for example this was how it looked when I made my comment.

I must admit I found the COI claims strange. Northamerica1000 is a dedicated editor in a range of topics, and his editing habits here do not seem any different than at any other articles he takes an interest in. Not sure what COI is suspected, maybe he is a contestant. Anyway that should definitely stop. Points 9 and 10 above I do not see as a problem. In fact I had already merged the information from 10 (not to Northamerica1000s satisfaction, but merged nonetheless), so I don't see that as being against consensus, but more a disagreement on how much to merge. The other points are in articles I have not frequented so do not know enough background. Some look like content disputes, although civility could be better from The Banner. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, Aircorn. I was working on a daily basis to remove crystal balls, irrelevant info fancruft from pageant-articles. And then it is very annoying to see somebody on a regular basis restoring unsourced fancruft and/or irrelevant info. So yes, a break from it could be a good idea to restore a fresh look. I might have lost my cool. The Banner talk 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: What seems to be happening here is the interaction of a deletionist and an inclusionist. Accusations of "COI", "spam", "fancruft", and "unreliable sources", and the various general aspersions, are entirely inappropriate and need to completely stop immediately. I think a cool-down period for The Banner of three months' voluntary or enforced topic ban would allow the situation to cool down. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused about the labels deletionist and inclusionist. I am certainly not someone who AfD's everything he can nor do I want to include everything what is on offer. But I do belief in WP:RS, with independent, reliable and prior published sources present in the article to prove notability and relevance. The Banner talk 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of pageants, you are a deletionist and NA1000 is an inclusionist. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have been somewhat involved in these AfD's by The Banner involving many of their pageant AfD and speedy nominations, including issues on Miss America 2017 where instead of working on sourcing, just asked for constant speedying of the article until we had a solid source it was occurring (in that case, the signing of a television deal) despite the fact that most pageants almost always occur year after year outside of being affected by civil unrest, natural disasters or the organizing institution going bankrupt. The nom for Nuestra Belleza México 2015 (which ended up in 2016 due to various Trump/Miss Universe issues) was the same way with a very spare deletion reason you'd expect from someone who was new. The problem with pageant sourcing is it's a case where we have to deal with the best we can; pretty much almost anything but the most major pageants are either news sources happy that 'local person makes good' by winning a pageant, "drama" stories (most involving the Miss USA/Miss Universe organizations and said former owner of them) or just raw PR that has to be digested in a sanely written form with neutral sourcing; like most entertainment topics, finding a sober, completely neutral, and dull source for pageant stories is a needle in the haystack situation. We have to make do with what sourcing these have, but Banner has been unable or unwilling to compromise, even when I said in the Miss USA 2017 AfD that I would personally look after that as a redirect until we have sourced information and that continually bringing pageants to AfD is a waste of time that could be better spent on other projects. I agree with Aircorn that a topic ban for Banner is appropriate unless they can find a middle ground between sourcing things well, understanding that WPBP has a right to their article purview, and taking anything with a "Miss (x)", "Mr. (x)" or "Mrs. (x)" off to deletion straightaway. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Just for the record I was not advocating for a topic ban or indeed anything else against any of the editors. My presence here is simply as an editor who became involved in one of the incidents. I was just trying to express my reading of the situation as an experienced and relatively impersonal (about this topic at least) editor. Did you mean Softlavender instead perhaps? AIRcorn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That I did, thanks for noticing it; my error, and apologies. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Interesting that you start about the Miss USA 2017 AfD, where you completely ignored the point - and not only from me - that redirected articles will be restored multiple times before they are salted and that an admin needs a sound base to salt such an article. Like having an AfD to build on. An opinion based on experience... The Banner talk 09:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Nate's analysis of the entire situation is quite accurate and neutral. In terms of the Miss USA 2017 AfD, it's you who are ignoring Nate's point above (and indeed the consensus of the AfD). Your argumentativeness in this ANI thread does not speak well for you. If this is the sort of attitude you are going to maintain about pageant articles, the proposed topic ban will likely turn out permanent (at least two editors, Davey and Nate, have supported that on this thread) instead of short-term. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself, my friend. And I hope that you have noticed by now that I obey the voluntary topic ban from the day NorthAmerica filed this case. The Banner talk 08:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in question is extremely hard to work with. As a recent example, see Template talk:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands, where a discussion about removing (and restoring) an empty line devolves into accusations of "editwarring". WP:BATTLEGROUND? Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that due to the disruptive behaviour of Kleuske on the Dutch Wikipedia, the ArbCom put in place a total interaction ban (on my request) upon us. See nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Projectverstorend gedrag van The Banner. She is now introducing the same mentality and behaviour here. To avoid any future problems I request a permanent interaction ban between Kleuske and me to serve the peace. The Banner talk 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I noticed that it is less stressful to stay away from the pageant misery. So I keep doing that. Not just for three months, but most likely longer as I am clearing out my watchlist. The Banner talk 20:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment @The Banner: either being barred from working on pageant articles or his voluntarily walking from them would be a horrible loss to wikipeia because this particular WikiProject is a mess. Fancruft, unreferenced, trivia, make believe pagents/hoaxes, the Project has seen a lot of it (and more problematic editing) and Banner tries to clean up the messes but people come back and recreate the messes again or recreate totally new ones. Banner is a bold pushy editor, sometimes he does dazzlingly close to the precipice, but Wikipedia needs him. Collegiality is great but aggressiveness is needed around here sometimes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think NA1000 has a COI in these pageants, and that was a poorly made accusation--but I agree that Banner's edits in this (and other) field is very, very helpful. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I do not agree with ...User:William's description of Banner coming "dazzingly close to the precipice" pertaining to this discussion. Imho, Banner seems to have lost objectivity and has gone way past the edge on what is acceptable editing on Wikipedia. After reading through this and checking out the diffs and getting a sense of the editing behavior(s) of NA 1000 and The Banner - - no editor has the right to cast aspersions and tell another editor to "shut up". Also, consistently operating unilaterally against consensus is also unacceptable editing behavior. This is not how this project is supposed to work. I don't see being overbearing or uncivil and so on as being constructive. At the same time, it speaks well of him that he is willing to take a time out voluntarily. Because I can Respect that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have a lot to add here and will try to find time to do this soon. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey unilaterally deleting good article nomination

Every user has the right to attempt to nominate an article for good article status, and it's up to the reviewer to decide whether or not the article will pass. However, Curly Turkey, who has made no contributions to discussing the content of the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, has been doing nothing whatsoever on the article's talk page except unilaterally edit warring to delete my nomination.[6][7][8][9] Deleting the nomination would be unacceptable under any circumstances, but I think every single Wikipedia editor should be able to agree that deleting a nomination without even bothering to give a single reason on the talk page is completely unacceptable. Curly Turkey has never stated any specific reason why the article is not good article status, or stated anything else for that matter, on the article talk page. Curly Turkey has never sought to gain any consensus for his unilateral actions, and he is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith because he keeps going around telling me and other users outright that I'm not editing in good faith.[10][11] For a long time now, he's been making hostile comments against me wherever I go.[12][13] I've been working hard on improving the article and Curly Turkey has given no evidence that any of my work on this article was done in bad faith. However, I could work collaboratively with Curly Turkey if he was capable of speaking to me in any way except threats and insults. What's more, Curly Turkey has already been banned three times for edit warring, and edit warring to delete talk page comments is especially bad. In fact, Curly Turkey seems to be in the habit of deleting my talk page comments, because he's done it before. This sort of behavior is obviously harassment.TH1980 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well; it was obviously of import enough for you to edit war over. _Muffled ^Pocketed

From what I can see, CT is saying you need consensus to remove those tags and you are saying you don't. Given that all of this occurred three days ago, might it not be wise for you to see if you can compromise the matter? I understand you feel you've been hard done by. I would ask CT if they are of the view that the problems mentioned in the tags still persist in the article. I realize to some extent this is content, but let's see if there's common ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And out in the open, of course. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You're claim of edit-warring is misleading at best, just look at the dates of your own diffs. That said, there are currently no tags on the article and my question is who removed them? If you removed them then that is a problem, if somebody uninvolved removed them I'd like to know their reasoning if they provided it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is also of concern; It seems that you removed the POV tags without getting consensus to do so. [14][15], the first removal of the tag was reverted with the edit summary of "That was sneaky. Do not remove this again without talk page consensus." I agree with that assessment given your own edit summary was "Added more bibliography". More importantly then that I'd also add this into the discussion for consideration if only for the summary [16]. Note that only a few edits were made after this and that they were nearly all minor (at least two of the major edits were reverted over consensus issues). I have my doubts about the above report. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone is going to revert a nomination, shouldn't they at least say what's wrong with the article so that I can fix it? CurlyTurkey has never mentioned any reason on the article talk page, and even when I asked him on my own talk page he did not.[17] I have already dealt with all outstanding issues concerning the article, but his edit warring has been going on for months.TH1980 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you are correct they should, I do not condone their actions, however I also do not condone your own. I would take less of an issue with your removal of the POV tag if other edits after your removal of the tag hadn't quoted POV issues in their edit summary. Clearly, other editors, who are not involved here, believe that the changes had not removed the POV issue. I have taken a second look at your report and find that there is an astounding amount of assume bad faith on Curley Turkey's part, however, I will wait to give them a chance to respond here first before passing on any judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some of the conflict here is the same as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, which TH1980 was a party to (along with several of the many ANI threads leading to that case). It also looks like nearly the same exchange happened with CT and CurtisNaito just a few months ago. Guess we need CT to weigh in to add context/justification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Especially since CT mentions CurtisNalto in an edit summary. Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There are longstanding issues with TH1980 and CurtisNaito at History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture (and other articles, for all I know) regarding their misrepresentation and choices of sources, etc. As a result, the consensus is that they must seek a consensus from the other contributors to these articles before nominating them for GA (note: I am not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture, aside form copyediting). CurtisNaito was blocked for editwarring to nominate History of Japan without seeking a consensus he knew he needed, and TH1980 was a contributor to the editwarring (but didn't get blocked).

With regard to the Korean influence article, the issues are extrememly controversial, and several editors have disputed TH1980 and CurtisNaito's handling of the article (particularly their choice of sources). User:I JethroBT told them "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months after disputed sources were removed, the two added them back in, and CurtisNaito told TH1980 the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations"—meaning the disputed citations "which were already part of previous versions of the article". Immediately afterwards they nommed it for GA (from which TH1980 got my first warning). Then out of the blue, without even the pretense of seeking the consensus to nom that he knows is required of him, he nominates the article again. With no edit summary. Something he's done before in the hopes of just slipping this through. We've been through this pattern with him enough times that AingGF is no longer credible.

These problems have been going on nearly a year since I first got involved, and from the sounds of things they've been going on much longer than that at other articles as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm satisfied. Thank you for your work on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - looking at CT's involvement with Korean influence on Japanese culture, it seems he has vested at least enough in building this article for a seat at the talk page to collaborate on certain matters, like putting it forward for peer review. It seems contrary, to me, to suggest otherwise.--John Cline (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Like I said above, I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources, and try to stay away from contributing to politically charged articles like this one. Take a look at the talk page to see how much is in dispute, including in the three archives that have built up, and the AFD. Remember, this is but one article where these issues keep coming up with TH1980 and CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you are "not a contributor to Korean influence on Japanese culture", I don't see why you should prevent nomination. I fixed all the problems from the talk page, but maybe you didn't notice that because you were not participating in those discussions for some reason. I asked you what parts of the article you disagreed with on my own talk page, but you never said anything. You can block a nomination because there is a problem with an article, but you can't block a nomination because you, who isn't even "a contributor", want some sort of vague "consensus". If you know of any specific problems, tell me what sentences you object to, and I'll deal with it. If you assume good faith, I'll work with you and other editors, but you can't keep edit warring without being "a contributor" to the discussion. Remember that IJethrobot never accused me of disruption. Actually, he said the exact opposite and he expressed concern that you were exercising a degree of page ownership over various other articles.TH1980 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think regardless of the tags, the article needs to free of POV issue before it goes to GAN, if only to assure the integrity of the process, because a GAN reviewer is not likely going to know the field well enough to detect them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• CurlyTurkey just said "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". Is that the reason why he won't tell me what his problem with the article is? Apparently, he won't tell me because he hasn't even looked into the article content yet. CurlyTurkey should think up a reason for preventing nomination before preventing nomination, not the other way around.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Notice the game TH1980's playing here—a behavioural pattern. Notice how he never acknowledges—let alone addresses—the fact the he makes not even the slightest pretence of finding out if there's anything like a consensus for the nomination on the page. Expect him to continue playing this game—this won't be the last nom, and I doubt it'll be the last time he brings it to ANI. More eyes on his editing would be most welcome. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do plan on nominating it again as soon as I deal with any concerns you have with the article's content. You never got consensus to revert the nomination and you haven't posted a single concern about the article's current content on the talk page. Since you haven't yet told me what specific parts of the article you dispute (and you even stated above that you have no knowledge of the article's content), I see no reason why I shouldn't just renominate it right away.TH1980 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And there we have it folks. Could we get a few more people to watchlist the page? Particularly some admins to watch the talk page? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
        • If you don't know enough about the sources to edit the article, I told you that I could make the changes myself if you tell me which sentences currently need changing. You haven't said a word about that. All I want is for you to take a collaborative attitude and discuss things on the talk page rather than just reverting. If you have nothing at all to say on the talk page about the article's content, no one will criticize me for nominating the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
          • This endless WP:IDHT is another part of the game. Enough editors have been driven away out of exasperation from the pages CurtisNaito and TH1980 tagteam on. Look how dead Talk:History of Japan has become. We've all run out of energy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't see how you can be out of energy from doing nothing whatsoever but unilateral reverting without discussion. When I ask you to tell me if you have any problem with the article's current content, and you say nothing, obviously I'm not the one not listening. If this were on the talk page, it might just be a content issue. The reason why it might not be a content issue is because of the lack of willingness by other editors to discuss content or anything else for that matter.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
              • For anyone falling for these word games, take a look at Talk:History of Japan and its numerous archives—a dozen of which are from the last year alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                • As I already linked above, IJethrobot told you that I wasn't being disruptive in that discussion. Are you reverting me only because you think I was being disruptive in a discussion that took place many months ago? You were already told that I never did anything disruptive there.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • You know why you were reverted, and we're all sick to death of these games. As long as you refuse to get consensus you will continue to be reverted. Thanks for drawing more eyes to the problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
                    • You are the only one reverting, so how do I get consensus with you when you will not tell me why you oppose the current nomination and will not say anything on the talk page? According to Wikipedia rules, you can revert only if you discuss. I have been discussing the article and dealt with outstanding issues, but you have not been doing that. You cannot revert unilaterally, without consensus, unless you plan on explaining your reasons.TH1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The deletion of talk page comments is definitely wrong and sanctionable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the substance of this dispute, but FWIW Curly Turkey has a history of deleting other peoples' talk page comments if he's angered by them. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Editing others comments is not inherently disallowed, except when the meaning of the original comment is changed WP:TALKO However, I would not recommend editing other peoples comments for any reason. If the comment is bad enough that it needs to be edited, it's bad enough to be outright reverted and the editor warned. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Questions and comments: (A) I'm not familiar with GA nomination procedures. Can someone point me to the relevant guideline or policy which indicates that an article cannot be (re)nominated for GA without some sort of consensus (and where and how that alleged consensus is to be achieved or denied)? (B) In terms of the maintenance tags at the top of the article, CurtisNaito removed the hidden comment underneath them (<!-- Do not remove these tags again until the issues with this article have been resolved. The first (enormous, highly dubious) section ("Art") remains largely unchanged since the AFD. ~Hijiri88, May 2015. -->), on 26 May 2016: [18]. After one intervening edit by CurtisNaito, TH1980 removed the maintenance tags themselves on 26 May 2016: [19], without acknowledging that in the edit summary and without Talk page discussion. He did the same thing two more times after they were restored: [20], [21]; still no discussion or permission on Talk. (C) If there are problems with the article, what are they? Could those opposing the GA nomination please indicate the problems? (D) I myself would be extremely skeptical about sourcing such an article. Any source which derived from Korea or from anyone of Korean descent would have an obvious COI and be suspect, in my mind. Therefore it would be most important to find unbiased sources. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(A) "If an editor finds and contributes to an article and they believe that it meets the good article criteria, they may nominate the article" "Anyone may nominate an article". Therefore, technically no consensus is required. (B) There is no question that the problems that originally caused the article to be tagged were fully and completely dealt with before the tags were removed. It was only many days after the tags were removed that concerns were raised on the talk page that were unrelated to the original tagging. I and other users dealt with those subsequent concerns, and I waited several weeks after that to make sure no one would raise any further objections. Only then did I renominate. (C) CurlyTurkey has not yet said what objections he has to the article's content. Instead, he said above, "I have contributed no content to the article. I'm not familiar with the sources". (D) There's nothing wrong with including sources from neutral Korean scholars. Excluding all scholars even "of Korean descent" is definitely too extreme. Still, the majority of the sources cited are not written exclusively by people of Korean descent. William Wayne Farris is American and so is C. Melvin Aikens who co-wrote a peer-reviewed article on the subject.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: There is no requirement to find consensus under normal circumstances. TH1980's and CurtisNaito's are not normal circumstances. Here's an abbreviated version of the exasperatingly long story (notice how long it is even when abbreviated):

I used to copyedit CurtisNaito's GANs when I saw them on the GAN listings—he edits Japan-related articles, as do I. Sometimes his articles seemed a little funny: Iwane Matsui, for example, which he brought to FAC with some strange omissions. I AGFed, because he seemed to be doing an awful lot of work for WP:JAPAN.

In August, CurtisNaito, who had never touched the History of Japan article before, made two edits to it and nominated it for GA the same day. It passed a week later with an extraordinarily superficial review. The listing immediately drew a number of editors disputing it. I showed up to copyedit, and didn't really follow the disputes at first. Over the months of dispute that followed, I eventually took a look at the actual sources—and discovered the disputants weren't just being dispuatious. Missing key figures and events, trivial detail in abundance, organizational issues, and the sources cited didn't support the text. In short, the worst hatchet job I'd come across on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, TH1980 mysteriously and suddenly showed up on the page and began removing tags. Discussions on the talk page went nowhere as CurtisNaito tried to drown them in text and TH1980 would interject bizarre non sequiturs to derail them. Attempts to fix the article were blocked with the excuse that it was already a GA, so hands off! It was taken to GAR, and after 15kB more of this endless nonsense was finally delisted—and CurtisNaito relisted it twelve minutes later, and an edit war ensued. This happened more than one, sometimes with TH1980 participating in the edit warring, with bizarre comments like GA is a valid topic to discuss, (in an edit where he adds the GAN but does not discuss anything) and then responds to an actual discussion "We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll." These are typical of the mind games TH1980 has played throughout the dispute. Here's an example of CurtisNaito sneaking in the GAN banner under the guise of adding a comment—notice a pattern? They've both GANed the "Korean influence ..." article in similar sneaky ways. A result is that these pair are now required to seek consensus on the talk page before nominating articles they know are disputed. Of course, they never do, and continue to try to nominate these article on the sly.

Then these disputes continued endlessly on the History of Japan talk page, editor after editor eventually giving up under CurtisNaito and TH1980's war of attrition. The discussions eventually came to an end around Christmas, and the article remains a mess that this pair refuses to allow to be improved. They've turned to Korean influence on Japanese culture, an article with far fewer editors watchlisting it. It is an extremely politicized topic, and it has been pointed out that some of the sources are by nationalists. Disputes ensued (I wasn't involved) and some of these sources were removed. User:I JethroBT told the pair "topics dealing with influences between countries are complex because sources claims sometimes conflict. In these cases, due weight is important to think about". Months later, CurtisNaito suddenly declared to TH1980 that the article "could be nominated for good article status ... just by adding in all the citations ... which were already part of previous versions of the article" (meaning the disputed citations that were removed).

This is an explicit declaration of Bad Faith. I've brought it up already, too—why do so many of the commenters here refuse to address it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a standing order or sanction or some such similar that states that TH1980 and CurtisNaito must seek consensus before nominating for GA? This is just an immediate question I have, I will take a look at these articles, edits and talk pages. Will reply sometime later today. For the time being, perhaps both parties are at least somewhat guilty in the ABF department. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

An official ANI-style sanction? No. This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page. Consensus doesn't require official sanctions. Please keep in mind the disruption these two caused by getting the History of Japan article GA-ed, using the certification to block improvements to the article—this is not a trivial issue, which is why consensus to nom is critical. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, I'll be looking at the pages for History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture, specifically I'll try to review the history and talk pages and come to better grips with the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

My first impression is, both talk pages are just walls of text, currently on Korean influence on Japanese culture I notice that three editors are continuously in dispute over the quality and validity of sources. I think, it may be useful to get the third person's opinion here (the other two are already here), @Nishidani: would you care to comment on this thread about the issue? as you seem to be a recently involved party. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Others involved in that page's disputes with CurtisNaito and TH1980 are Shii, Ubikwit, Sturmgewehr88, and Hijiri88, though Hijiri88 won't be able to comment here as he and TH1980 have an interaction ban. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"This is a consensus among the other contributors to the page." Can you provide the link to that consensus? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well @Softlavender:, I have something even better. [22] How about this for some sleuthing, there is AN/I consensus that CurtisNaito is not to propose a GAN until consensus is formed. Read the entire closing statement, its in Archive906. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely beautiful, Mr rnddude, and I want ot have your babies. There are so many threads on so many different forums about this stuff that it's impossible to remember where all this is anymore. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That applies to a completely different article (and a different editor). I would like to see the consensus that Curly Turkey referred to regarding Korean influence on Japanese culture by "the other contributors to the page". Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the same behaviour by the same two editors on a closely related and similarly highly disputed article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, there is no "consensus among the other contributors to the page" that Korean influence on Japanese culture cannot be (re)nominated for GA without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: in other words, you have no qualms allowing such meatpuppetry to become a precedent? IJethroBT was explicit that "Both editors are well aware of how contentious [the History of Japan renomination is", and that applies to the closely-related "Korean influence" article which is disputed for the same severe sourcing issues. The bad faith and obfuscation on the part of both editors has been established, and the reasons for the nomination have been laid clear—to obstruct. We're dealing with a serious ongoing problem here, and your response is WikiLawyering. Will you take responsibility for the damage? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the feeling we'll have one on this thread if the people that have been pinged have the time (or will) to reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be worth glancing at as well, its indicative of the sort of issues on the page. [23] Mr rnddude (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely no one except CurlyTurkey has ever told me, in any manner, that I need "consensus" before nominating the article Korean influence on Japanese culture, or for that manner any article, for good article status. CurlyTurkey cannot provide any diff that would show any other user telling me this, because that never happened. Even so, I'm absolutely willing to seek a consensus with CurlyTurkey on this matter. What I need to know is how I can reach a consensus with him when he has never stated anywhere on the talk page what his objections to the current text of the article are. My main goal in being here is to convince CurlyTurkey to tell me what he objects to about the content of the article so that I can deal with it before nominating. He still hasn't said anything. As CurlyTurkey points out, I did edit the article History of Japan, but I was not the one who nominated it for good article status. CurlyTurkey seems to mistakenly believe that my edits to that article were disruptive, but the admin IJethrobot explicitly told CurlyTurkey that my edits there were not disruptive. Another user says that CurlyTurkey has a history of deleting the talk page comments of people he is angry at.[24] Either CurlyTurkey is keeping his objections to the article a carefully-guarded secret, or else maybe he is just deleting the nomination because he doesn't like me personally.TH1980 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any. Here [25] he eloquently laid out some serious concerns, which he can repeat during the GA discussions, if they happen. Or, he can post those concerns preemptively on the article's talk page right now. I personally have no opinion on the merits of this article, although Curly Turkey's statements there are indeed worrisome, especially when noted alongside TH1980 and CurtisNaito's repeated removal of maintenance tags with diversionary misleading edit summaries, and I agree that sourcing such an article must be done very very carefully to avoid Korean-COI POV. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm open to having a discussion concerning the article. I think all editors can participate and lay down any remaining problems that they have with the article. Remember that I didn't try to nominate the article until weeks after I had dealt with all outstanding concerns on the talk page. Once discussion restarts, I will not nominate again until I or another user has edited away any remaining trouble points. A talk page discussion with CurlyTurkey and all other users was all I was asking for anyway, and if all users agree that we should discuss the supposed problems with the article, then this thread can be closed.TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to having a discussion—then open one, as you've been told countless times. But we know from experience that will never happen. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

SoftLavender said, "If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions". I agree, and I don't think you've done that yet. Also, Mrrnddude seemed to indicate, I think, that one possible option to solve the problem is "The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails." I didn't nominate the Korean influence article until weeks after talk page discussion had reached its conclusion, so I wasn't trying to obstruct anything. I'm willing open a new discussion if you participate and tell me what you would like to see changed in the article. This thread could potentially cause discussion to restart on the article talk page involving all users, and I'm okay with that. A number of other users have confirmed that consensus is NOT necessary to nominate the article, so I don't think you were correct to delete the nomination, but I'm willing to talk about any outstanding issues at this point. Sometimes solutions to AN/I threads can be complex, but most of the eventual solutions do involve assuming good faith and discussing things. This is Wikipedia, and for better or worse, those two things are pretty much mandatory.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion. The person who wants to have a discussion, or insists on having a discussion, is the one who should open it. There is no requirement that a GAN be pre-discussed. Discussion happens as a matter of course in a GAN. If someone wants to re-nominate the article for GA, they are free to do so at any time. If someone wants to forestall that, the way to do that is to bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to open a discussion—CurtisNaito is, as you're aware. Again, you're WikiLawyering. Now why are you avoiding addressing the actual issues? This thread being part of it—the whole situation's a setup on TH1980's part. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the article issues is the article's talk page. The place to discuss behavioral issues is in an ANI thread with abundant substantiating diffs (or an ArbCom request, if it has gone that far). What other issues do you want addressed, or what outcome are you expecting/wanting from this current ANI thread? Could you be specific? CurtisNaito and TH1980 topic-banned from Japan-related articles? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from tag-teaming/co-editing? CurtisNaito and TH1980 banned from GANs without prior article-talk-page consensus? (Or some other sanctions against poorly sourced editing?) Since we haven't yet heard from any of the other editors to this article, it's hard to make those calls based solely on your evidence here. That's why I suggest a dedicated ANI thread that all parties who have experience with these two editors can participate in and bring evidence to. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: While I'd love to see them both topic-banned from Japan-related articles, all I've asked for here is that they both abide by the standing requirement that if they intend to nom any of these highly contentious articles for GA, they post about it beforehand on the article's talk page and ensure there is consensus that the issues have been dealt with. I'd hardly call that burdensome. Why would they refuse if they are acting in good faith? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "the standing requirement". No one but you ever said that I needed consensus to nominate this article, and you only just told me this month. Still, I'm willing to get consensus, but only if those who disagree with the nomination do what SoftLavender says and "bring up clear and specific solvable issues on the talk page". That's the key. Those who disagree need to list specific objections that we can discuss and that we can fix. I think that once a majority of respondents approve nomination, that should be consensus.TH1980 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All right. I'd like to see Wehwalt review that proposal and post his opinion, possibly also closing this thread in the process unless there is more business to attend to. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Softlavender: I need to point out—again, since people are ignoring this—how many editors have engaged with these two at History of Japan and who don't even bother to respond to pings any more, so effectively have CurtisNaito and TH1980 worn them out. A dozen archives in less than six months (mostly August to December). Attrition is a serious problem with these two, and a serious problem with getting them dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on that, and I've had experience in similar situations with editors who lock down a specific topic POV and wear everyone else out so that the landscape is clear for them to dominate. That's why an ArbCom may eventually be in order, if you can motivate the troops. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Unfortunately I see this going two ways, 1. the arguments stay on here and somebody gets a block or better yet no-consensus or 2. The article is sent to GA, an editor reviews it, it either passes of fails. That or wait for some responses, I went through as much talk and archives as I could, its impossible to sift through. The only people who could reliably comment on this are those that were there. As for a potential GA nomination, I agree with the above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither (1) nor (2) solve the problem. We've made numerous calls for someone to step in, but nobody has the balls. This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up. There is no way at all! And that's the point—CurtisNaito and TH1980's modus operandi is to keep these disputes so long, buried in so many archives and across so many forums, that nobody can seriously wade through it and deal with the real problem—which is CurtisNaito and TH1980 and their execrable hatchet jobs on Japan-related articles. It's too hard to see through the mess, and too easy to block a 3RR violation or someone saying "fuck". It's gone on for years now—how many more to come? How many people have to get blocked or IBANned or TBANned over standing up to these two editors' relentless shenanigans? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel there are enormous and site-wide problems with Curitsnaito's and TH1980's behavior, then I think the appropriate forum for that would be a dedicated ANI thread (not this one) with numerous specific diffs that make your case. Or ArbCom, but it should probably be at ANI first. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: Another one? Very drôle. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• At this stage, I say block Curly Turkey if the GA review is removed again. I'm sorry, I don't see any indication that the request is in any being done to be disruptive or to make a WP:POINT so as of this point, someone has requested a review, so have a review and move on. I have zero idea in this long-winded discussion why Curly is opposed to another party reviewing the article but so be it. It's not like there's a dispute about the person doing the review, just the idea of a review. It seems like Curley is opposed to the state of the article, which is fine, but without a single discussion on the talk page about what is the problem with it, this to me is no different than someone posting a POV tag on the page and refusing to state what the actual concerns are. If the article is really in such poor shape, then a GA review should fail but at the very least, it won't be the same editors bickering over it. If we conduct a review, Curley still refuses to tell anyone what the actual issues are, a reviewer passes the article, can Curley then continue to be disruptive over the state of the article and refuse to state the actual concerns? What is we move towards a FA review? Will we continue this routine? It's not that difficult: if you have a problem with something, explain it and convince others. If you can't or won't do that, too bad, it's not our jobs to read your mind. Ranting that a group of others are ruining things without providing any concrete information about what the problem is is a fast way to get yourself topic banned. Besides, any article that isn't inherently stable is going to fail a GA review fairly quick so -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In other words, you ignored every word of this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I got it. You think people are doing something wrong. You haven't explained what it is nor do you have the consensus to get those editors topic banned and rather than either doing the necessary discussion to get your point across, you're pouting and edit warring and playing passive-aggressive games that resolve nothing. The talk page shows a lot of disputes but there is currently no IBAN or TBAN or whatever in place and you still won't just come out and explicitly tell anyone else the problems. So in terms of us moving on, either we will sit here going in circles with you pouting and complaining about what or even who really, I can't tell, or someone can make a request for a GA review, and other parties can review this one article while the rest of us deal with the remaining five million pages here. Again, it is YOUR responsibility to explain what your issues are: we are not psychic nor do I plan on responding to your "hide-the-ball" routine about what issue you have. I honestly could not care less about getting into whatever drama you want to engage in here but the fact that in this lengthy stupid discussion, I can't find a single concrete reason why your opposition to a review should trump someone else wanting to do it. I don't even know if you just think the article is not GA quality at which point the easier solution is to just start the review yourself or let it go. Clearly, you are more interested in stopping other people than actually achieving something here and for that, I suggest everyone else ignore whatever grudge you have and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If I may, Ricky, I originally thought exactly the same thing, and had so stated in so many words up above. Then I went back and closely read all of CT's posts in this thread which were not of the snipey type (the snipeyness and the like are CT's downfall), and found that his core points make abundant sense (even Wehwalt agrees with that), and are extremely worrisome. Even though ideally there should be an official ArbCom or ANI ruling to point to such a restriction on CurtisNaito and TH1980 re: this article, there isn't one other than the combined evidence that has been presented by CT and others in this thread and by other ArbComs and ANI threads (some of which are linked or mentioned here). It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus. That's why I'd like to hear from Wehwalt on this matter. Yes, CT was out-of-process in his GAN removals, but it may have served the higher good. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to propose an IBAN or a TBAN or whatever, then propose that. Do it in a separate section and be concise and to the point, instead of making out an argument routine about whether you need a consensus to start a GAN. Still, I don't see a simple: "this is a problem because of diff X" that cuts through the pages of text here. Until then, I presume that the GAN request was in good faith. Is there evidence that the GAN is some sort of POINT violation or something screwy? Are others here opposed to a GAN review on that article? If so, why? Give me an explanation that can't be defeated simply by "let the review go and oppose it at the review." Otherwise, deal with that issue separately, by as stated explicitly making a separate AN or ANI or ARBCOM post about the matter. If people want to debate the standards for creating a GAN review, take that to WT:GAN or whatever as that is not for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if literally no one else will deal with the problem, there are two possibilities here: either it literally is the most insurmountable problem ever seen in the history of this project, one that that is so complicated on such a giant topic involving so many different editors that it simply cannot be explained to mere admins or even arbitrators or regardless of your disagreements, there is no problem here. In this entire mess of a discussion, I see someone express a desire to get someone else topic banned and where the response has been "create an ANI discussion or take it to ARBCOM" and it seems like the response is "I don't want to do all that so this is how I'm objecting." Does that sum up where we are right now? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

All I can say is, unless you have read every single post and link on this thread very carefully, I don't think you have a grasp of the situation or how it cannot be solved by "a simple: 'this is a problem because of diff X'" or by assuming that the GA renom was simply in good faith. That's why I'd like Wehwalt (who is currently asleep/offline) to weigh in. I understand your attitude of 'I shouldn't have to read 150,000 bytes of text to understand this', but unfortunately I think you do. Anyway, I'm probably not going to repeat myself further or reply further; I will await Wehwalt. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Softlavender, I went through so many archives and talk pages. Discussions with these two editors is always a shitshow. The proposal is a little bit outside of norm but I understand where its coming from. Read everything and I believe you will too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. When people can't distill their points down to a concise manner, it's largely a matter of effort. Ten to one if someone took this to ABRCOM and had to make the 500 word limited summary, they would be able to do it but no one is even trying here since there's requirement to do so. It's not that hard to link to five discussions that are going in circles rather than actual diffs to show us the Gish gallop routine if that's the problem. If even the IP dispute can be brought to ARBCOM with people following the specific word limitations and providing accurate summaries, this topic certainly can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I hardly ever participate in ANI threads, but the solution here seems simple. CT, opposed the nomination because of no consensus, then start a 7 day thread on the article's talk page, and if there is no opposition, or there is a reasonable consensus act on. CT was wrong to persistently revert, and TH1980 could have better handled the situation by starting a simple 7 day discussion on the talk page simply to appease the concerns of Mr. Turkey, and this whole discussion could have been avoided. If I'm missing something, I apologize, but this thread is turning into a wall of text going in circles.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text maybe, but a wall of text with vital information about a very complex, wide-ranging, and longstanding problem. Have you read the entire thread and also the links provided to other discussions? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have and it's a rather large amount to take in. But I still feel, going back to the original reason this post happened to begin with, if it were me, I would've opened a thread on the article talk page asking the other editors if it should be nominated. That would've only helped the nomination, because if it was nominated as a result of a discussion, it would have shown the article to be decently stable. Then again, I'm no content contributor and I gain my experience from lurking around various places. I just thought I would offer my opinion on the matter.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• It would also be instructive to hear what BenLinus1214 aka Johanna has to say about the situation on this article, considering they rejected the last GA attempt 2.5 weeks a year ago with this summary: Talk:Korean_influence_on_Japanese_culture/GA1. Especially given the fact that all of those maintenance tags were removed from the article surreptitiously, with false edit summaries, by CurtisNaito and TH1980. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC); corrected 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't receive the ping earlier for some reason. I haven't been editing much recently, but even so, if I was going to be discussed this much, maybe I should have been notified on my talk page instead.

Softlavender, I don't believe that I removed tags improperly. I removed the tag mentioning art because my very next edit was a rewrite of the section on art with the edit summary "art". I must have done a good job editing it, because even though concerns were raised about parts of the article later, none of it related to the section on art. When I did remove the POV tag, I used the edit summary "It might be better to tag just the specific section you are concerned about. The large majority of this has never been objected to." Although I discussed the matter with Curly Turkey on my talk page [26], Curly Turkey did not give a reason for tagging the article and did not argue against it in the talk page. It seems to me that I removed the tags in an open and proper manner. Also, note that the article was last nominated one year and 2.5 weeks ago.

However, a lot of the diffs above relate to events before 2016, almost all of which were presented as evidence in the aforementioned arbcom case. They may be misbehavior, but those diffs were already investigated and judged months ago.

And concerning that issue, I think Curly Turkey is still showing some hyperbole relating to my edits. I'm not a bad editor, as the users who have reviewed the good articles I nominated can attest. Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question" Is Nishidani really that horrible of an editor, completely unable to read sources or edit in a competent and sincere manner? Actually, it seems like Curly Turkey gets more than a little carried away in heated discussions with the people he argues with.

Though I was not involved in the recent edit warring, naturally I supported nomination. I have nominated numerous good level articles, and when I noticed that TH1980 had been heavily editing the Korean influence on Japanese culture article while I was inactive, I told him he should consider fixing the article's remaining problems and nominate it. I never suggested to him that he add in any sources that (at the time) were described on the talk page as being controversial. From the talk page, we see that TH1980 was able to correct a number of important errors Nishidani made.[27][28] I'm sure each of them corrected each other on occasion. I noticed that Nishidani was warned by an admin about potentially driving users off the article because of his rude comments, but it seems like the two of them still managed to work together. TH1980 often pointed out in the talk page that the wording he used matched the preferred wording of the sources, which mostly were peer reviewed articles and academic books.

Various users have put forward various solutions to the current problem of when to re-nominate the article. Though consensus may not be required, it's obvious that if new complaints turn up they should be discussed either during or prior to any good article review. If discussion begins again on the talk page of the article in question, I'm sure I'll eventually get around to expressing my own view. TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries, so what was needed was indeed discussion. Nishidani himself stated below that very frequently my role in the article's talk page was to step "in to find a compromise". There were many occasions on the talk page where I proposed requests for comment and other such measures, so maybe we need to move in that direction.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"TH1980 was correct to point out that he did not re-nominate until many weeks after he had responded to all talk page queries." TH1980 renominated the article 2 weeks after Johanna rejected the first nomination. And none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, as I already mentioned above, he nominated it one year and 2 weeks after. It seemed to me that he was responding quickly whenever Nishidani raised a concern.[29][30] Personally, I think that discussion was progressing well, and if more work was needed then discussion should have continued.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now you meant that the first nomination was in 2015; I had failed to notice the year date. However my point still stands that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved, as can plainly be seen on the talk page and its archives. If you disagree with this, I invite you to read the entire talk page and its entire archives, as well as Nishidani's post below. on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of Nishidani's posts were disputing the reliability of "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", a peer-reviewed academic article written by a team of leading scholars, including a prominent American historian. I offered to bring the source to the reliable sources noticeboard just to be sure it really was a good source,[31] but I never received a response. As was pointed out by three users in the talk page, Nishidani is a researcher but as a result has some tendency to lean towards original research. The academic article Nishidani disputed is at least not original research, but it could be original research to create, as Nishidani did, an entire paragraph, in an article on "Korean influence on Japanese culture", and cite it entirely to the Nihon Shoki, an eighth century work of history.[32] I appreciate that I could discuss things with Nishidani, but it is through discussion that we can identify and eliminate original research like this. I still think that re-nomination is fine as long as the current issues on the talk page are responded to and edited. TH1980 did not nominate until he had done that.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As to this, I cited a primary source, almost word for word. That is not original research. When requested, I gave a secondary source. Nothing in that breaks the rules. The so-called peer reviewed source used to write a third of the article was co-authored by Sung-rak Choi, affiliated (what's that mean in terms of academic status?) with the Department of Archaeology, Mokpo National University, a department that seems to have near zero attendance, and one lecturer, not him. just as the other chap, Hyuk-jin Ro is affiliated with the Department of History, Hallym University, a small private university in Korea. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't take a passage from such an old history book and interpret it as being "Korean influence on Japanese culture". Wikipedia discourages the use of such old works in general, but we can't necessarily say that the authors of the Nihon Shoki intended that passage to demonstrate a Korean influence on Japanese culture. That might simply be a modern interpretation. I found it odd that you think the Nihon Shoki is a good source to cite in the article, but not a peer reviewed academic article specifically on the subject of the Wikipedia article. Also, I did offer to take the academic article to the reliable sources noticeboard, and we could have discussed the matter at greater length on the talk page. This article has a lot of strengths including co-authorship by numerous academics (you haven't questioned the two working at the University of Oregon), extensive citations to scholarly works, and research done at major museums in both Japan and Korea. Even if you disagree with its opinions, I suspect its acceptability as a source would stand at the reliable sources noticeboard, probably a lot better than the Nihon Shoki would.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple English lesson. 'Old history books' has two primary meanings. (a) an outdated secondary source in history (b) a primary source (Herodotus, the Bible,Sima Qian, Livy, Primary Chronicle). You are using (b) in the sense of (a) and haven't understood WP:PRIMARY, since I made no interpretation. Making a more extended comment than this will only generate the humongously silly threads your failure to understand these matters invariably generate.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia also discourages primary sources, if you prefer to call it that. The very fact that you put it on an article called Korean influence on Japanese culture means that you interpreted that passage as an example of Korean influence on Japanese culture. Perhaps it is, but to be safe it's better to just use modern scholarship about Korean influence on Japanese culture rather than culling obscure passages from ancient works and assuming ourselves that these passages were intended to prove Korean influence on Japanese culture.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources, it discourages incorrect use of primary sources. Incorrect primarily meaning interpretation, don't interpret the meaning of a primary source. Where secondary sources are available then it is best to use them provided that they are Reliable. The very fact that it's on the article by no means means that there is interpretation going on. If a source says something and you quote it, there is, by its very definition, no interpretation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "primary source" would be irrelevant unless it was on the subject of Korean influence on Japanese culture, and I would be wary of declaring the passage in question to be necessarily about Korea influencing Japan. In this case, it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. I think that we should be able to agree that a peer reviewed academic article published in 2007 is a superior source to base a whole section off of than a history book from the eighth century.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Curtis. The above only shows why you also have a behavioural problem. The obvious takes paragraphs + to get through to you, even with policy. When you raised this issue, you said: I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source. Translation? You don't understand what a primary source is (a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.) There is no shadow of a doubt that the Nihon Shoki fits this exactly. It is the primary literary record of the early history of Korean peninsular relations with Yamato. Once more your trivial, ignorant hairsplitting here is evidence of how this game of quibbling attrition is played on those and similar pages. Eventually this willful obtusity to the obvious on talk pages, which has driven off several editors, will have to be reviewed administratively. If CN can harp on his doubts even in the face of facts and straightforward policy, I leave it to all to imagine what happens when one must explain to him the intricacies of ancient history and its interpretations, esp. since he knows nothing of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Large passage? it's one bloody sentence how is that a large passage. Can you link me to the source you are supporting CurtisNaito, I'd like to take a look at it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

For that matter I have a serious question. If theres an issue with the Nihon Shoki, why, has this not been implemented; [33]. @CurtisNaito: made a request for a better source, @Nishidani: offers up a recent secondary source, and @TH1980: states quite literally that they'll put it in and then doesn't do it. how about some actual conflict resolution and not just conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980 put the source in immediately after he said he would.

Most of the history covered in the Nihon Shoki was not written contemporary to the events that had occurred. The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events. I favor the journal article Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan. I do think it's a double standard to use the Nihon Shoki as the sole source for an entire section, but disparage a recent peer reviewed article.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nihon Shoki describes hundreds of years of events and was compiled by individuals who had no personal experience with those events.

The 4th proof in a few exchanges you don't understand what you are talking about. Prince Toneri, the editor of the primary text that is the Nihon Shoki, was a contemporary of the Empress Jitō whose reign is covered by that work. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're probably aware that Prince Toneri, who was born in 676, was not a contemporary of most of the historical figures portrayed in the book and could not have met Maketsu personally.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are totally unaware that Livy, Sima Qian, the Tanakh, Herodotus, Thucidides, etc.etc.etc. are all primary sources, like the Nihon Shoki, and are regularly quoted on early Roman history, the Zhou Dynasty. the history of early Israel, and the Ionian Revolt, all things that occurred up to a 1,000 years before the birth of those primary source authors. My practice is always to quote them, unlike most good wiki editors, through secondary sources, unless the datum is quoted verbatim, as I did from the primary source here. You don't know the subject, you don't understand the elementary rules on primary sourcing, so drop the obtusity.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, we should just use Wikipedia's definitions. Wikipedia defines primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." You can't deny that this does NOT describe the Nihon Shoki as you cited it. Prince Toneri was not "close to" the events of, say, Shotoku's regency (or Maketsu's arrival in Japan) and certainly was not directly involved it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence why you should be banned from editing these articles, for intransigent hair-splitting to dispute the obvious and challenge the universal consensus of scholarship, which, if if isn't just dumb, looks like a tactic of attrition.Since this is Wikipedia, we should read the whole policy page, and not spin one part for the whole, i.e. 'Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later.' All modern scholarship on Japan classifies the Nihon Shoki as a primary source: here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. So much for your vaunted preference for ‘modern scholarship’.

This persistently willful obtuseness to make a point should be sanctionable, and I leave this for anyone to bookmark for an occasion when CN’s longterm behaviour on these articles calls for serious administrative review.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of those sources you just cited are referring to the Nihon Shoki as the main source of information on ancient Japanese history. "Azumamaro established a reputation as an authority of the Nihon Shoki which for him served as the primary source on ancient history". If it was only "the primary source for him", it means that it was the main source he was using, not a "primary source" in scholarly terms. You are far more likely to see the Nihon Shoki described as a historical text or an ancient history book than as a primary source. According to "Traditional Japanese Literature" by Haruo Shirane, "The Nihon Shoki draws on numerous sources, including Chinese dynastic histories, records compiled by Korean immigrants to Japan, histories of temples (engi), and various local clan histories." In scholarly terms, a primary source should be the original. If a book is researched by consulting earlier sources, as the Nihon Shoki was according to Haruo Shirane, it is likely a secondary source. That's why Wikipedia says that secondary sources are "one step removed from an event."CurtisNaito (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Digging yourself deeper into the hole you made. (a) WP:Secondary source

if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, (a) that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source, (b) but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".

This means per wiki policy that the Nihon Shoki, as all scholarship confirms, is a primary source.

Even if you accept Shirane, then my citing the Nihon Shoki would be citation from one of the 2 fundamental secondary sources (which it isn't per the scholarly consensus) for ancient Japan. And thus your original objection is self-invalidated. In either case you are wrong. In both cases, you are demonstrating your ignorance of policy and the status of these works in Japanese scholarship Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that there are varying definitions of primary sources, but I had thought that on Wikipedia it was fine to use Wikipedia's in-house definitions: the ones from the policy page. Many of the Nihon Shoki's sources are still extant, like the Wei Zhi, which is directly quoted in the Nihon Shoki[34], and many temple records including Gangoji Engi[35]. Obviously the Nihon Shoki is far more than "one step removed from" most of the events it describes. As you know, the point I was trying to make earlier is that we should discourage using the Nihon Shoki alone as a source for entire sections. No matter how we classify it, I think we should realize that the Nihon Shoki's information is not always reliable. If you still insist that the Nihon Shoki is reasonable as the sole source of information for a paragraph of potentially controversial material, you can have that view, but maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No one used the Nihon Shoki for 'entire sections' or even a 'paragraph', that is, again, a fairy-floss fantasy spun out of nothing. I cited it for one sentence on sewing. (b) Since you believe the Nihon Shoki, against all the scholarship, is a Secondary Source, you should have simply challenged it as a secondary source, rather than challenging it as a primary source. No one in his right mind, with a knowledge of the hopic would discuss such details on that talk page any more. It is a numbers game controlled by two editors, who write what they want to write, regardless of objections, and that is why it probably won't get GA approval.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why I said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source" is because I assumed that, if the Nihon Shoki were construed as a primary source, then the section would be reverted outright. I have been warned in the past to never use primary sources in any articles, though maybe the rules have changed since then or maybe it was always an informal rule. Because of my tendency to compromise, I wanted to hold out the possibility of retaining the material rather than just reverting it. I was told in my early days, "we avoid primary sources". If the Nihon Shoki were a secondary source, as it definitely is if we use Wikipedia's in-house rules, then it would seem more acceptable as a source. My personal opinion is that the Nihon Shoki is not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section, but that's just my opinion and I wanted to stimulate discussion rather than force my opinion on you.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the reason why we are having this absurd discussion is that you ignored taking the tip from 15 modern academic sources, which overwhelmingly list the Nihon Shoki as a Primary Source. Only someone who has no frequentation with classical Japanese scholarship could ever doubt the obvious, and quibble on those testimonies, as you then did. That, and the fact that you didn't know what WP:Secondary sources states, explains why we have this tedious negotiation. It's even worse on that talk page. When wrong, admit it. It's simpler all round. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Except its not an entire section. It is one sentence. Stop referring to it as a paragraph or an entire section. This sort of misrepresentation is what annoys other editors most. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the section entitled "sewing". Do you not call that a section?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes its a section, with one sentence. Here's your comment -> "not reliable enough to be the sole source for an entire section" that section is one sentence. Is the source reliable enough for one sentence? Yes actually it is. So what exactly do you want done here? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I was not deliberately misrepresenting. I had believed that each titled portion of a Wikipedia article was called a "section". According to Wikipedia, a paragraph means a "self-contained unit of a discourse in writing". I had thought that an independent "section" dealing with sewing constituted a "paragraph", but I suppose that the word paragraph can be defined in other ways. I feel that not responding to content-based complaints would be rude of me, but what I really want is what I said right above. "Maybe we can discuss that on the article talk pages on a case-by-case basis, rather than here."CurtisNaito (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't 'deliberately misrepresent'. You're certainly confused, and disconcertingly change tack endlessly in this infinite pettifogging. You've rephrased defensively as usual your gross distortion that started this nonsense. You origionally wrote of my one short sentence that it broke wiki policy on 'large passages based on primary sources (which you deny however was a primary source!:

it was an entire section cited entirely to the Nihon Shoki, and Wikipedia does at least promote being "cautious about basing large passages on" primary sources. 19:08, 28 June 2016

This style of backtracking without giving an inch is what we have to supposedly negotiate with assuming good faith.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I showed, there's simply no way to define the Nihon Shoki as a primary source according to Wikipedia's rules and, though you denied my description of it as a "history book", if you want I can give you far more than 15 sources describing the Nihon Shoki as a "history book". In order to not step on Wikipedia's rules, I would personally rather call it a history book, as do many scholars. However, on this issue, like many others, I'm always modifying my stance in accordance with the stances of other editors. My stance isn't fixed, because that makes compromise more difficult. It's not that my personal viewpoint "changes tack", it's that I'm willing to put aside my differences with others for the sake of a compromise. For instance, I personally believe that the Nihon Shoki is not a primary source, but in my comments I merely said "I don't know if I agree that the Nihon Shoki is necessarily a primary source", because I was holding out the possibility that it was a primary source. I have my opinion, but I don't like to force it on others. I would rather be deliberately vague and guide the discussion to a mid-way compromise.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

i.e. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just take my above words at face value. Opinions vary, sources vary, but usually there's ground for compromise somewhere in the middle. I hope we can discuss this matter further on article talk pages if there is need. I'll listen to your views, and I will not unequivocally call the Nihon Shoki a "history book" again. That's only my opinion and the opinion of certain other scholars. I promise to not impose that opinion on any articles one-sidedly.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A history book, doesn't necessarily mean an old book, it can also mean a book about history. Many secondary sources are called history books because they are books about history. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's a more reasonable request. Paragraphs are generally 4-6 sentences in length but can be smaller, one relatively small sentence won't be considered a paragraph even by technicality. It is generally preferred that content discussion stay on the article's talk page. So yes please, take those discussions there by all means. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think part of the reason TH1980 started this thread in the first place was what he perceived to be absence of talk page discussion. It seems like reverting without discussion was one factor leading to this dispute, and maybe all users need to be enouraged to use the talk pages more readily to explain their ideas in detail. Wikipedia says, "A paragraph consists of one or more sentences", but your above comments on paragraph size are something we can discuss on that article's talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Did he? I see that he put it in the references section but didn't actually use it for the citation in question. A remarkably convenient omission don't you think? Thank you for linking me the article, I will take a look at it shortly. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He added the source as the citation in question, not just in the references section, immediately after saying that he would.[36] TH1980 was correct in saying that he did not nominate until after he had executed all existing recommendations posted on the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies, the format is a little different on the citation then in the references. Due to the lack of date and name for the source. I didn't recognize that they were the one and the same. As a side note, what in particular would you like to be included from the source you linked me for the sewing section?

No, I only meant that I found it odd that such an old text was being cited as a reliable source for an entire section, while the academic article was not treated as a high quality source. Concerning the Nihon Shoki, both TH1980 and myself expressed some concern that Nishidani was extensively analyzing the Nihon Shoki and another ancient source to refute the academic article in question. I don't think that the reliability of a peer reviewed paper should be questioned based on a Wikipedia user's analysis of an ancient text like the Nihon Shoki. My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

'My preference in all matters is modern scholarship.' Thanks for giving me a laugh. I like to end the evening with the stimulation of a fantasy, preferably someone else's. Guess who added most of the modern scholarship on that page. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I cannot comment on the reliability of sources dealing with the article in question. The issue that Nishidani, if I have understood, seems to be addressing is that the source you have provided isn't credible for biased POV issues. That is something that the editors who are working on the article need to sort out themselves. Somebody should open an RfC with their version and the competing version and hope to collaborative productively from there on. That said, Nishidani does not appear to be the average Wikipedia user, but, a published academic in this field. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this again, and then I'm going to stop, because I feel you are changing the subject and giving a run-around, instead of addressing the point (I'm guessing this is one of your behaviors that CT and others have referred to). You claimed above that TH1980 did not renominate until he had responded to all talk page queries. The truth is that none of the problems that Nishidani, who is a published expert in this exact subject, had with the article had been resolved. This can plainly be seen by anybody who reads the talk page and its archives, and now also Nishidani's post below on this thread. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess my point was that TH1980 did not see the peer-reviewed academic source as a problem, and while I didn't either, I wanted to find a solution that might settle the matter. However, when Nishidani did not respond for weeks, I think TH1980 just went with the existing consensus because many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which, TH1980 and I noted, was somewhat dubious as article content. If this issue arises again, the reliable sources noticeboard or request for comment are maybe the only solutions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal attack insofar as it, as is usual, completely screws up my work here and the editor in question had the hide to misrepresent me as agreeing with him.

many of Nishidani's drive-by criticisms seemed to be based on the sort of original research which he and I, noted was somewhat dubious as article content.

Naito. Give me diffs, or, if you can't, strike that crap out.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While I know the basics on Japan/Korea history, it's not my field and I don't want to opine on the article because I know an expert could lead me around with subtle POV I wouldn't get. And I feel I expressed an opinion when I said I was satisfied with CurlyTurkeys explanation, so I don't feel I should close this. Appreciate the confidence though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Responding to User:Mr rnddude's request.

• WP:COI.I am published on this topic, in a peer-reviewed academic press. My identity as such is known to several here, including an admin with a professorial chair.I am critical of nationalistic cant, esp. when it infects scholarship, not only regarding this culture area.
• I agree with Curly Turkey on this. There is no conflict there. We had a vigorous disagreement on one of these pages, that turned nasty once. We sorted it out. I respect his independence of judgement and care in editing.
• The article would be very important if it was in competent hands. Fixing the persistent POV+pushing spin and clumsy uses of sources by TH1980 and CurtisNaito - my experience with them is that their editing is a nightmare- has been a constant drag on everyone’s time. They shouldn’t be editing the article so deeply entrammeled by competing nationalist claims. Yet they have done nothing that would get a sanction there, except showing an extensive ignorance of early Japanese history, and a persistent desire to document a theory, that it is all Korean, basically. They are very careful to be polite. The iron nescience wraps itself in a velvet glove. Impeccable, with a variant: When TH1980 screws up, CurtisNaito steps in to find a compromise,
• Nothing was either ‘Korean’ or ‘Japanese’ down to the 6th—7th century, when a proto-nationalist strain slowly began. The Korean state was created in 668, the Yamato ‘state’ somewhat earlier. In both we have constant inflows of tribes, cultures, language groups, warring and making alliances with each other alternately, in both the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archepelago. TH1980 is retroactively casting all this intricately polyethnic movement as being ‘Korean’, as do many of the sources (dumb to the nuances of higher scholarship) (s)he cites.
• I’ve been notified from time to time to look at it by several editors, and almost invariably found both their edited content deeply problematic. Neither should be allowed to touch anything dealing with ancient Far eastern history. They know nothing of the scholarship, the sources they use are mediocre, and they consistently misread them.
• The article is in its present shape because (a) edit after edit, TH1980 mainly, screwed up. Editors like myself stepped in, readjusted the text, and replaced the poor sources with page-links to the latest scholarship on every issue. I gave up because I intuited that it doesn’t matter to the POV pushers that they get everything wrong, since, their bid for a GA article is assured: They screw up, and a competent area scholar will fix the damage making it look so much better.
• A third of the sourcing (37/118) comes from just one source: Rhee, Song-Nai, Aikens, C. Melvin, Choi, Sung-Rak, and Ro, Hyuk-Jin, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan". Asian Perspectives, Fall 2007.
• This passes RS, formally, but the kindest construction on it is that ‘Asian Perspectives’ though that, despite the heavy handed Korean nationalist spin, it did contain numerous citations of recent high quality Japanese and Korean scholarship, and was worth passing solely on those grounds. I have said that it should never be used unless the trouble is taken to verify their spin or claims or arguments, item by item, against the judgements of recent Japanese and Korean scholarship.
• I stated some of the problems on the talk page here. Where I gave one instance of where in just one (of numerous details) these four scholars allow their nationalist POV twisting to alter and distort primary sources. All of the corrections involve technical details that will fly over the heads of the average reader unfortunately. The criticisms I make are consistently ignored by the two editors, perhaps because they can’t grasp them.One could do this for much that is in the source paper written by those 4 scholars. I for one, haven’t the time or inclination to frig about correcting it all, to make it usable for this article.
• All of these issues, and many others, will persist with that page as long as incompetents guide its editing, and GA reviewers are likely to miss the mess because to see the fraudulent spin you must have some solid grasp of Korean and Japanese nationalism, a detailed knowledge of their respective ancient histories, and the fact that nearly all of the ancient historical issues exhibit conflicting currents of interpretation in the relevant scholarship. Everything there is theoretical, not factual, and drenched with potential bias u nless one exercises acute care. One could do better by writing an article The history of interpretations of Korean and Japanese cultural links in modern scholarship, which has an extensive academic literature, and would run to the 100,000kb level at a minimum. As it stands, and as its main editors edit, the article should never been considered worthy of GA review. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop dicking around with other peoples comments here. Unless you are removing a personal attack against yourself, leave them alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an opportunity venue for editors to weigh in with mechanical adversity against an editor whose views they consistently oppose on any or every topic. The proper thing is to ask an editor who with his tagteam mate has driven to exhaustion six other competent editors, to explain his egregious distortions regarding my views. My practice is to use the talk page to convey what the relevant scholarship says. They don't know it, and need to be told in every edit. When I do that drudgery, the response is 'original research', (i.e. 'Duh, I didn't know that.') I don't cite my own views on any article. I cite what the scholarship states in its varied opinions.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for taking the time to respond to my request. From what I gather, there is a significant imbalance of weight being allocated to certain Korean sources. Perhaps the editors in question, or perhaps all editors, should look to try to balance their use of Korean and Japanese sources with some other Western sources as well, or at least, look to make statements that are confirmed by both side, Korean and Japanese, or Korean/Japanese and Western sources. This should ideally prevent all bias and POV. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, I'm still not seeing anything new here. It looks to me like there was a prior GAN, someone provided a review there, including numerous suggestions. Since then, it's been a year and someone else (or the same person, doesn't matter) wants to conduct another GAN. The original reviewer and others think the prior fixes weren't done, other editors think it was. Some editors think others should be topic banned, others don't or the reverse but the end point here is: there still are not topic bans in place and I still do not see any indication that the GAN request in and of itself is a problem, just a vehement disagreement on whether the article is a GA, which is kind of the point of a GA review. Either way, there should either be continued discussion on the talk page about whether it even passes the first GA requirements suggested or we can start a new GA review and you all can chew out the new reviewer as incompetent to understand the vague suggestions that you all are going on about or you can take on the new reviewer as another review. The first thing any sensible new reviewer is going to ask is if the prior GAN review concerns were addressed so that same issue now stopping a new GAN from starting will be done there. If the new reviewer wants to start anew, so be it, go chew them out for that if you want. Again, if someone wants to suggest a topic ban or an IBAN or whatever, there is little in this discussion seriously addressing that so either start that specific issue or let's just move on to doing a GAN. It would be hard to imagine a GAN passing without the people who find the page problematic actually expressing their views but if they don't express their views beyond vague generalities about Korean and Japanese sourcing, I have no idea what the rest of us are doing here other than waiting until this discussion takes up the whole page, runs out of steam and then goes straight into the archive without any admin action. As if now, I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here and I care only about resolving the GAN issue right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably the only outsider even remotely willing to read the whole pile here—Whoa, way to put Mr rnddude and Softlavender in their places! You've contributed nothing but noise, Ricky. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: If you think "vehement disagreement" is something that can or should be resolved by a GA review then you need to look more carefully at the GA criteria, and especially at "quick fail" criterion 4 and GA criterion 5. Being the subject of an ongoing and significant dispute is an immediate disqualifier for GA status. So any GA reviewer could reasonably stop there without taking the time to understand the dispute in more detail. That is, the existence of this dispute ipso facto means that any attempt at a GA nomination would be premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the talkpage I am pretty sure the disagreement would disppear with the forcible exiting of certain editors. What stands out for me are the personal attacks.

"Go away. You are boring and incapable of reading either policy or scholarship. It is quite pointless addressing me, since you cannot understand my replies."

"Because the other editor is, is for me, notoriously incompetent"

"obviously because you don't know anything about Asian, Korean or Japanese history."

"You haven't understood anything."

"you are a one-eyed POV pushing editor"

"You shouldn't be on Wikipedia

"my working hypothesis is that your lazy tossing in of 'stuff' you google up without understanding what its status is in Japanese studies, is meant by now as a prod to get serious editors who actually know the subject professionally, to fix it, and thereby, since you can't write a GA article, get them to do so by fixing your errors with technical precision."

Etc. When you add in the constant use of profanity, it is actually surprising that disagreement has been so civil by the other parties there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

All factual descriptions, and I confirm them. The tactic here is to maintain a perfectly WP:AGF posture while consisting hindering competent editors from doing their work. That's why so many have fucked off. The amount of netspace caused by the intransigent hair-splitting in particular of Curtis Naito, whose knowledge of ancient Japan, and the secondary scholarship, is close to zero and yet who persists in talking past the concrete evidence by waffling, is unbelievable. Anyone who disbelieves this is invited to look at the tortuous negotiations to resolve obvious solutions his presence there demands on numerous pages. Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no exceptions to WP:NPA and your opinion of other editors is not a factual description. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as to CN's ignorance of the topics he edits is factual. I've documented it on numerous talk pages. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that you and the other editors are getting frustrated because the discussion is going nowhere. However, it is best practice to never comment on an editor, only their work. Please keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. All that will happen is that it will cause the original complaint to stall and even backfire. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The whole reason this is here at ANI is because of behavioral problems by the users in question. That is, literally, the primary topic of this discussion. So don't tell us not to discuss it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then what's the solution? It's either (a) a GAN review or (b) no GAN review. We can add blocks or topic bans or whatever else people want but I don't see any specifics other than general bickering and people pointing out that the talk page and its archives are not being productively done. The last review was just a quickfail on the tagging. The tags have been removed. Is the tag removal at issue? If so, then oppose a GAN review and go back and argue about tagging. If not, what are we doing here other than going in circles here with the bickering. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Somebody above mentioned that according to GAN policy, a dispute on content should automatically invalidate a GAN. I would not personally recommend the article for GAN until all the content disputes are resolved. Yes, there are multiple simultaneous content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Thus putting the article in breach of GA criteria #5. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude: Somebody above mentioned that ...—you don't have to tell Ricky that. He is, after all , the only one who has read through any of this mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I apologize if that came across as an order to not discuss behavioural problems. Some of the comments made by Nishidani above are not acceptable. If I were to pick one specific example it'd be "You shouldn't be on Wikipedia.", the only editors who shouldn't be on Wikipedia are those that WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDAL. What I is was trying to demonstrate is that "Comment on content, not on the contributor." should be a guiding principle when talking to other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think as a whole, Nishidani's comment was that they shouldn't edit that area until they had read up on the material because what they are producing is substandard. Possibly some of the descriptions could be toned down without loss of content, to assure that this discussion doesn't sidetrack.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when does any of that justify NPA? Also, user comments should almost never be modified by another user. As for al the claims, I don't think anything is going to come of any of this because at this point, it is just one large wall of text.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You obviously failed to see that the user's comment which I struck out, was then emended by that editor when challenged to provide a diff, because he realized it falsely attributed to me a view I never espoused. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I've been reading this since day one, I didn't stray in. 2) As for your comment, I am very much opposed to touching someone else's comment. What I would have done is ask him, or coax him to strike or remove himself. If he fails to do so then i would contact an admin to see if that is casting aspersions or something that would warrant you to strike it out yourself. As far as results, this is typical of ANI, once the thread is too large to read, there will be no action other than auto archive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not averse to following advice. But it is rather disconcerting to see that when I struck out an opposing editor's fictional attributions to me of an idea he shared with his pal, there began a fluttering in the dovecotes about me that wholly ignored the justice of my complaint. That I was correct was shown by his subsequent alteration of the text, without any note that he had made the mistake. I don't mind the fine tooth-comb being vigorously applied to my work. I often observe that in a conflict where I have a just complaint, my formulation of it is scrutinized with a microscope for my behavior, while the content issue is ignored. I sigh, stiff chedder, mutter 'fuck me dead' and then, well, have a cuppa and roll myself another smoke, thinking that that's how all of this bullshit written here will end up anyway, like my cremated self one of these days.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I referred to both you and TH1980 in my post, and then much later in the post I made a reference to "He and I". I thought it was clear from the context that "he" meant TH1980. I didn't care that you altered my comment, but if you had instead asked me, "Who is the 'he' you are referring to later in your post?", I would have said TH1980, not you.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the only thing that can, and arguably needs to, come of this is that the editors recognize that GA will have to wait till all content disputes are resolved. I'd rather not see any sanctions imposed on any editors involved unless they irreconcilably demonstrate that they are not here to co-operate to improve Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words: enforce the restriction on CN et al. against nominating without first seeking consensus. We're back to where we started, but I'm sure Ricky's itching to block me if I dare try to enforce this already-established restriction again—so how do we enforce it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to institute that restriction, because it never existed in the first place. Above someone said, "Bottom line: There is no known stricture on nominating or renominating an article for GA. If Curly Turkey feels the article does not meet GA standards, he need merely say so during the GA discussions, if there are any." "CN et al." is a vague statement... In my opinion, the problem was that other users were not willing to discuss the alleged problems with the article on its talk page. Now that discussion has restarted, the problem is solved for now.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You won't lawyer yourself out of this—I JethroBT named "Both editors", and the consensus here is against your pulling this again. The number of people who've seen you at play keeps increasing—do you seriously think you can keep playing these games? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the link, and IJethrobot never said "both editors". You said "both editors" in your comment, but nowhere did the closer of the thread, IJethrobot, say "both editors".TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

TH1980, you quoted me (without attribution) just above, but you failed to mention that I later stated "It's enough to convince me personally that we have a problem here and it needs to be halted and a good way to halt it is to restrict CurtisNaito's and TH1980's GAN privileges absent talk-page consensus." I will strike my earlier opinion if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have not been involved in this article for over a year, I think, so I'm not directly involved in this thread. But I was pinged, so here I am. I think that this article was one of the oldest outstanding GANs (though I may be wrong about that). It was a pretty easy quick fail candidate, as the seemingly endless maintenance tags disqualified it. Furthermore, I looked closer and the concerns of whoever placed the tags seemed to be quite legitimate. That's pretty much all I can say about this. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thus my statement above. The GAN was rejected because of the tags. The tags were removed. If someone believes that the tags were wrongly removed, then we can discuss that but given the lack of discussion about the tags I presume people think the tags were rightly removed, so what is wrong with having this exactly same argument at a GAN? The only problem seems to be people who want to make it clear they reject any notion of any discussion about whether it qualifies under the GA criteria because of some fear that people who aren't them would pass it as a GA because they cannot or will not explain what their concerns are. As such, this will be another one of those "throw enough nonsense at a discussion at ANI about why you hate the other people there and no one will do anything about the actual conduct at issue until it goes into the archives" discussions. It seems agreed upon that there's no two person or consensus requirement to nominate a page and start a GAN or at the very least, it's literally something no one has every heard up and seems a new made-up rule for this page (every other dispute just goes to actually objecting at the GAN) to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The tags were removed by the editors most involved in the article, can't remember if it was TH1980 or CurtisNaito that removed them. Not sure if it matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Noticed a couple IPs repeatedly adding and removing closing tags to this section without much by way of explanation. There were no objections, but that might just mean nobody noticed. I've reopened just because it didn't seem like a legitimate close, not because I have any opinion on the content or outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit filter? Range block?

At MKUltra, an SPA IP added this: [37] Would this be considered WP:COATRACKING the fringe claims made at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

That IP is a sockpuppet of Unemployed Golfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See his disruption on multiple IPs on psychotronics, see the bottom of the talk page Talk:Psychotronics#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou_sockpuppeting_and_vandalism_of_this_article

HealthyGirl (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

FYI; the material added to MKUltra was cited to a book by Colin A. Ross who claimed to be able to emit magic energy beams from his eyes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• I find this user problematic, he's got 100s of IP addresses as he admits "Also remember anyway, that since I have DHCP ISP I'm theorethically allowed to "spam" the whitewashed article on unprotected pages" [38]. He is now commenting on the deletion of articles on this IP 87.6.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), admins need to be informed about this. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• Edit filter? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• In testing at filter 773, crude but is getting them bang to rights (for now). Log only for a mo to test, but I think this could grab them pretty well -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• @Guy Macon and HealthyGirl: Any other (unprotected) pages wish fresh edits from this editor? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

• @Samtar: This looks like another one: [39] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC) ^{(Moved here from Fringe Noticeboard)}

---

I asked a question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#MKUltra subproject 119 (now moved here) and found out that I am dealing with a drawer full of socks pushing pseudoscience (which is under Discretionary Sanctions). We could use a bit of admin help here... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a mo, I'll check some of the edits and see if a filter could be workable - is it just the one page? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The range looks too large to do a range block. Even if you chunk the ip's one of the ranges comes out to around 65,000 IP addresses which is a lot of collateral damage. An edit filter might be a better option if Samtar can swing it. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Right then, a basic working version is at my personal test filter 733, batch tested with no false positives against a number of affected articles. Currently log only to test for a bit, I welcome admins/EFMs to have a look and make any alterations -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the edit filter will be successful, because a rangeblock is out of the question due to them having access to several busy ranges. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's hoping, updated -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This has not been successful. He is using countless IP/S to troll the same articles. See the history of these pages [40] and [41]. The solution has been to lock one of these articles (psychotronics) but he appears to be doing the same on related articles. HealthyGirl (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @HealthyGirl: currently the edit filter is only set to log these edits, and not disallow them, so you wouldn't have noticed any differences just yet - coincidently, the examples you give above were not logged, so I'll see if I can tweak the filter some more -- -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have protected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronics (therapy) (1 week as the AFD will be over before then)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (3 days)

Talk:Psychotronics (2 weeks as this is the main disruption area)

Because of the disruption caused by this editor's block evasion. -- GB fan 11:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tested and moved to 775, set to disallow (see notice) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Yet another one:[42] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks, filter crudely updated for a moment -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing of F1 articles by Rowde (talk · contribs) whilst logged out (etc.)

• ‎92.21.243.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple removal of maintenance templates at Penske PC3 and others and abusive edit summary when removing warnings from TP. A sock of Rowde (talk · contribs) who constantly frequently edits whilst logged out (although the account was only created within the last few weeks) to rm maintenance and other templates (see 92.21.253.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and this edit). A long-term disruptive editor for F1 articles who will not engage or change his ways. See also this edit and this one where pages were restored whilst logged out without discussion or edit summary. Over a period of a year 130+ different IP addresses have been used (list available) making it impossible to communicate with the editor as the IP changes sometimes more than once per day. And if he does see messages, he'll blank the page and can become abusive. (diff) There are discussions at the F1 project talk-page here and here and there are multiple earlier threads as well as discussions at other locations. This editor has been out of control for several months and the F1 project really would appreciate some assistance. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will notify both the editor, Rowde, and the IP address. Please ensure that you always notify editors when issues come up about them. May have been to quick to pull the trigger, will revert my edit. Carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was doing so!! Please ensure that you allow more time before jumping in thank you. (Reluctant laptop). Eagleash (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that even on the registered account, Rowde, the editor refuses to communicate with others. Tvx1 13:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

More removal of templates at this address today whilst logged out. Eagleash (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, how long does this beleaguered section of the Wikipedia community have to put up with this editor? Long-term disruption in a dozen different ways, particularly editing while logged out and removal of maintenance templates, also repeated tendentious input concerning items for deletion, and submission of drafts. Communication with this editor, as explained, is usually impossible but always fruitless. Just because this guy restricts himself to a relatively obscure are of the project, does not mean he should be allowed to disrupt it ad infinitum. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Again removal of template here. Eagleash (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And again here. Eagleash (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And again here. Eagleash (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Miss Teen USA articles

Huon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disruptively editing Miss Ohio Teen USA Miss Nevada Teen USA Miss Rhode Island Teen USA. Removing un-contentious list items like ages and hometowns that have been collected from the official Miss Teen USA websites' contestant listings from the past 20 years. I have been advised by another editor "The provisions under WP:BLP that permit undiscussed removal apply to material that is contentious, and it's difficult for me to see how a person's hometown and age would be considered contentious". I might have been able to source from the Miss Teen USA website using Internet Archive but the website has now been blocked with Robots.txt and individually citing each one from the website for each individual year would be... well quite frankly a ridiculous use of time. I'm not sure why the editior is essentially destroying the articles but I don't have the time or inclination to get into an edit war over it. This information took weeks to source back when I was an active editor in the late 2000s and it's obviously frustrating to see time wasted slapping cite-ref all over it instead of the editor in question taking the time to actually find references which I was easily able to do, albeit highly time consuming. Advice would be greatly appreciated. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice would be to listen to Huon. BLP trumps everything. Period. You are required to provide sources. Huon is not required to do anything but remove unreferenced material immediately. Also, removing ages of under aged individuals without sources is the very crux of BLP. Removing it is also an exemption of WP:3RR. So, take Huon's advice. Stop trying to insert clear BLP violations into articles and remove the ones you have already inserted. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Either that, or individually source them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen to Huon? He AFD[43] this article. There are articles for each state that has a Miss Teen USA. Unless he is being WP:POINTY, nominating just one makes no sense. Two you say 'removing ages of under aged individuals without sources is the very crux of BLP'. The ages of winner he was removing included persons who won the pageant years ago. They aren't minors anymore. That's just my quick response to this thread before going to bed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

"We cannot nominate one problematic article for deletion because we have 49 others with the same problems"? Seriously? See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I nominated one article for deletion whose subject, in my opinion, does not meet the relevant notability criteria. There's no reason I have to mass-nominate all 50 at once; some of the remaining ones might actually be better than the one I nominated. Regarding the ages, whether or not they currently are underage, they're largely alive, and giving unsourced information of this kind violates not only WP:BLP but also WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants information included. Reinstating unsourced information that has been challenged without providing a reference is disruptive. As a minor aside, those ages aren't even relevant to the pageants they're listed on. Huon (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How would one state's pageant be any more (or less) notable than the other 49? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because notability is not inherited but must be proven individually. In any case, the AfD has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is about a potential BLP violation. Lets stay on topic here. --Majora (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the AFD has everything to do with this thread. As mentioned before, as a whole the editing is bordeirng on WP:POINTY. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No it really doesn't. And continuing to try to deflect the true purpose of this thread, which is about BLP violations, makes me things a BOOMERANG may be in order here. So stay on topic, listen to what people are trying to tell you, and either source the information or remove it. --Majora (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me what my compla9int is about? My concern is about disruptive editing on theese articles, incluyding hte POINTY AFD. 02:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs)

I suspect that the notability of all 50 states' pageants could be questionable, as noted below. Either way, I don't see how the "inheriting" of notability applies here. Presumably the 50 pageants produced a national pageant. There's no reason one state pageant should somehow be more notable than another. Either all of them are notable, or none of them are. If the quality of the article is a concern, that's a separate issue from notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

We really need to have a serious discussion somewhere on what makes a pageant notable and what makes a participant notable. I just don't see where state level pageants could possibly be notable. Do people actually write about such nonsense? As far as the individual winners? Without other things in their lives to make them notable - no way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia? What makes a pageant, any pageant, encyclopedic? Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The long-standing classic "Miss America" pageant should be sufficiently notable. I wouldn't necessarily argue for the others, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, and also NewYorkActuary who restored unsourced ages on Miss Nevada Teen USA (and IMO shouldn't have done): Please see WP:BURDEN, specifically: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis in original). If you want to restore unsourced material, you need to provide a source. This is, in theory, true about any content on Wikipedia, but becomes especially true with regard to BLPs. The fact that the subjects are now adults does not somehow trivialize the fact that the content needs to be sourced. I don't see how Huon has done anything wrong by enforcing what boils down to one of our most critical policies. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Just delete the whole damn lot of it then. PageantUpdater (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be the logical thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Including articles with 20+ sources just because I can't be effed indivudually sourcing 30 pages of ages through the internet archive. One up for the internet! Yay you! PageantUpdater (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Huon is completely correct. WP:V applies, and even more so to BLPs. Unsourced BLPs need to be deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All 50 articles, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: He's always doing that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If something is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, there will be reliable sources, so go find them, use them, and restore the content. If you can't find the sources, then it's not meant to be here. Finding out if there are sources or not, would probably take less time that it takes to make an ANI report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbols of Indian states and territories

This article was completely rewritten by me yesterday and today this User:Dharmadhyaksha (this user has been in a conversation above) reverted to an old revision which contained WRONG DATA AND WAS TOO TOO LONG. I summed that thing in a short compacter version witrh correct data but now this user is reverting it. Please advice, maybe there are issues with formatting they can be resolved without reverting the article. He also said that i removed referances, ok u may say that but i added links to other wiki articles that contaqin the data in detail and have foreign links also. Thanks pls advice Varun ☎ 07:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a content issue, why not try to get some dialogue with Dharmadhyaksha instead of taking them straight to AN/I. This place is for behavioural issues and not really content disputes. @Dharmadhyaksha:, rather than templating you, I'll ping you first, see if you're open to starting up dialogue with Varun here. Take the dispute to the article talk page, hash something out. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, this sort of edit summary [44], needs immediate addressing for one thing. You do not own that article (or any other for that matter), anybody may edit any article they choose, provided they do so within guidelines and when necessary after consulting other editors. Keep that in mind. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok actually i had come for advice not report. Thnx i shall discuss with him if he agrees to Varun ☎ 08:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That alright, wish you both the best in getting a resolution to the dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry! I do not intend to waste my time discussing stuff with newbie which usually is water off a duck's back. Wikipedia can stay shitty with them and i can go do other things. Have it your way. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In the context of Dharmadhyaksha being an editor of experience and tenure, and in the same context of VarunFEB2003 having only TEN PERCENT of his edits in article space, I think the community can make a clear judgement whose version is most probably the one to remain. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Widefox disruption

I'd appreciate it someone uninvolved could have a look at Widefox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in connection with the article Kinetic degradation fluxion media. He's been disruptively adding maintenance templates against consensus (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), and also edit warring to restore them after they have been removed, and good faith efforts made to address his concerns. I count a total of four reverts during the past several days: [45], [46], [47], [48]. In the process of conducting these reverts, he was careful to "warn" me (despite the fact that I was adding content and references, and indeed am mostly responsible for rescuing the article from certain deletion): [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. This is WP:HUSH behavior. When I asked him to stop posting harassing messages on my talk page, he continued commenting on my actions on article talk. I asked him to stop this as well, telling him to "focus on the content, not the contributor". Subsequently, he posted yet another warning on the article talk page (after himself conducting another revert of the article).

User:Widefox has engaged in tendentious arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetic degradation fluxion media (2nd nomination). Prior to my own involvement in the article, User:Toddst1 has also had interactions with this editor over the article in question, and also seems equally exasperated with his behavior. He believed that Widefox must have a COI editing in this area.

My own observation is that User:Widefox has already made up his mind that the subject of the article is bogus, and that no amount of reliable sources will change that assessment. I do not believe that this is consistent with an attitude that will result in a better more neutral article.

I submit this for the community's assessment because (1) I no longer wish to receive harassing threats from the editor under discussion, (2) Widefox, who has done very little constructive editing at the article, has in the process created an environment at the article and talk page that are not conducive to constructive editing, and so fits the definition of disruption. I am aware of WP:BOOMERANG, and at this point I don't really care if one or both of us is sanctioned. But the threats must end, and since Widefox is apparently unwilling to follow through on his threats, here we are. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for diffs for 4R as asked on the talk and offered to revert if I've made a mistake by going over as I'm aware I was close and did everything I could to work out and go by the book on the talk page. I've exhaustively attempted to reach consensus/compromise on the AfD/talk on terms such as RS, MEDRS, edit warring, section names etc . WP:BOOMERANG Editor has been encouraging me to take him/her to ANI [54] [55], and I've said it's better handled elsewhere. Partly content issues actively talked about on the talk Talk:Kinetic degradation fluxion media by the parties that does not belong at ANI. Partly disruptive editing. Partly edit warring with me involved (mia culpa). I've already given an offer on the talk to cool off and not edit (before this was taken to ANI). This is baiting when editor has been warned for their disruptive editing (all exhaustively discussed on the talk and AfD). This is the second time this editor has been at ANI for MEDRS sourcing issues, and doesn't agree with with basic terms in MEDRS (see AfD, and talk). Widefox; talk 11:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The prior visit to ANI "for MEDRS issues" was a completely different, and unrelated matter, regarding a completely different page, more than six months ago. I corrected you one this point once before. Here it is just an obvious ad hominem. I don't think that helps your argument, and indeed illustrates precisely the kind of WP:HUSH tactics we are here to talk about. Also, I find the attitude rather problematic that one can go exactly to 3RR, and no further, while "warning" others who are not reverting but attempting, in good faith, to resolve issues. That is one of the reasons we are here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) User:Sławomir Biały when you accuse "COI", do you even have any shred of evidence for that unfounded accusation? Repeating what someone else said is hearsay! Please provide anything, e.g. a diff. (for context, you know I'm active at WP:COIN which was my first edit to this article as COI work! [56] ...coming to this article from the dab [57] (and for the record, nope I have no connection in any way [])...I even have an essay about COI WP:BOGOF which details the exact dichotomy here of two valid editor views - a systemic bias issue with trying to rescue WP:TNTs like this article (as was) - Toddst1 for example disregarded copyvios exposed by me and another editor in trying to save it [58]. That's not COI.) All these accusations are not backed by diffs, so either provide evidence or withdraw. In terms of consensus, there's rough consensus for my editing with another editor being "100% in agreement with me" [59] as seen by the discussion at the talk with another editor - i.e. specifically these content issues - of maintenance templates etc. Widefox; talk 11:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of COI, but noted that other editors involved with you on this issue have raised that suspicion based on your tendentious behavior. You'd have to take up the matter with User:Toddst1. From my perspective, it does not really matter. If your behavior at the article is inconsistent with WP:NLOV, whether it's due to a COI or not isn't the main consideration. I am merely noting that other experienced editors have noticed the same behavior and suspected a COI for that reason. Similar conflicts with unconnected and univolved editors is a sign of WP:TE. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute! When Sławomir Biały says "exactly to 3RR" does that mean this is at ANI and there's not even the bright line crossed combined with exhaustive attempts to persuade collaboration on the talk and prevent 3RR violation?! Together with my evidence of baiting to bring to ANI, why is this here? BOOMERANG. Last time editor was at ANI for MEDRS [60] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#User:S.C5.82awomir Bia.C5.82y keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus] where someone said to Guy "My advice would be to simply ignore this nonsense. You have better things to do. Don't feed the trolls". Trolling is strong, but I agree. As for "My own observation is that User:Widefox has already made up his mind" - first see WP:AGF - as for mind-reading - even I don't know what's going in my mind half the time! If you read WP:BOGOF you'll see I respect both sides as valid (just one more healthy!). Widefox; talk 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Irony: That was advice to me, not Guy. You are now apparently accusing the editor who wrote most of the current content at Kinetic degradation flux media of trolling, while the bulk of your contribution have consisted of placing disruptive maintenance templates, contentious and non-neutral sectioning, and issuing bogus warnings. I say we just let the WP:DUCK test prevail, when an uninvolved administrator investigates your editing history in connection with this topic. Agreed? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the editor that Widefox quoted, since they are apparently now involved in this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're the troll or Guy? It's not clear to me from the context but I give you the benefit of the doubt (struck). but I do know that what Guy said is exactly what's happening here (difference being that's a guideline, this an article) "Slawekb, you weren't "discussing things on the talk page". You were discussing things on the talk page while at the same time repeatedly editing the guideline and being reverted. I asked you to stop doing that, you refused, and so here you are at ANI. The personal attacks above make it clear that you have no intention of stopping, and thus my asking ANI to stop you was the right decision". The closer is right ..."...reminded that other dispute resolution processes are available here, and that making use of them can be just as productive as raising the matter her at WP:ANI." . It's BRD not B (R&D). Widefox; talk 12:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As for "I did not accuse you of COI, but noted that other editors involved with you on this issue have raised that suspicion based on your tendentious behavior." - so you don't mind repeating hearsay at ANI (I'm still waiting for evidence or withdrawal), providing no evidence to back, and making out as if it's consensus, as a kind of chilling effect - exactly what you are accusing me of? An uninvolved editor said that reflected on Toddst1 not me. "I also think Toddst1 that making veiled suggestions of COI against a another editor simply because that editor disagrees with you, and on no other basis, is deeply concerning and the suggestion should be redacted. " Talk:Kinetic_degradation_fluxion_media#Claims and sources.User:Velella (pinging, and yes I notified Guy as we talked about him) Widefox; talk 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I am merely reporting that other editors have had issues with your disruptive behavior. It isn't just me. That's explicitly discussed at WP:TE. I've notified Toddst1, and of course he us free to add to this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

In summary, you don't mind repeating hearsay, you can mind-read, you've selectively notified those that you hope may agree with you, and you brought a content disputes to ANI. This has strayed so far from 3RR. Is there a 3RR violation or is this whole ANI bogus? Why did you bait me to bring to ANI? You were brought here before, identical edit behaviour that Guy took to ANI. Why is this still going on 6 months later, and 2 ANIs? You've been warned L1, L2, L3, L4 disruptive editing on this article - same as Guy - yes using the talk page, not waiting or attempting to build consensus disruptive editing - not using the talk page to attempt to build consensus/compromise for contested edits, refusing to recognise RS, MEDRS, WP:CSECTION, removing content, and not attempting to build consensus but continuing to repeat edits disregarding rough consensus at the talk. As proper notification has been given for edit disruption, the next step would be a block here (although bless any admin willing to wade through the verbatim and timings). Widefox; talk 13:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a request for an uninvolved administrator to investigate your disruptive behavior. The request specifically mentions edit warring, harassment, and tendentious argumentation at the AfD and article talk page. It is explicitly supported by diffs and links to the relevant guidelines, and your interactions with other editors. The request has nothing to do with mind-reading. These are serious behavioral issues, and should be investigated by the wider community. Your veiled accusations of trolling, "mind-reading", and dredging up completely unrelated ad hominem discussions are not helping. I suggest that we let the community decide. All this "you don't mind repeating hearsay" is just more tendentious lawyering. The first law of holes clearly applies.

I agree that the next step us a block. This request contains ample evidence of disruption, edit warring, harassment, and tendentious editing. It is supported by diffs of your reverts, diffs of your harassment, diffs of you continuing to comment on editors not content after being politely asked to stop. It contains evidence of prior disputes of the same kind with other editors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fact - the talk page has someone agreeing with me "100%" repeatedly. In contrast for you, there's nobody agreeing with you on the talk. The COI accusation reflected on Toddst1, now on you for repeating. You were made aware of boomerang before coming here. Widefox; talk 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is unrelated to content issues. If there is support for your disruptive behavior, please provide diffs. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Widefox: If you have been reverting while being careful to stay just within the confines of 3RR, that is not only still considered to be edit-warring, but is also wikilawyering and gaming of the system to boot. Cut it out now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Repinging User:Widefox as I misspelt their name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I've repeatedly asked for where I am as I do not know and offered to revert if mistakenly over. I am aware that edit warring doesn't need 3RR. So no, there's no gaming but the talk does have my attempt to prevent 3RR/edit warring violation by cooling off and discussing etc (per above). As I haven't counted, I can't cut it out, or do I misunderstand? But specifically 3RR, above there's "4 reverts" in "several days" so which edits are specifically 3RR in 24hr I don't know, so can't defend myself. Think I read the nom editor doesn't mind being blocked for edit warring along with me, but I don't know what the 3RR is yet! (it is also clear to me from the noms comments that they only consider reverts, so they are armed with too strict a definition of revert for 3RR, which may mean more/less reverts i.e. "part/whole undos" have happened for me I don't know, and presumably many more for them than they realise). Widefox; talk 13:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No idea where on the article talk page you offered to self-revert. However, this edit clearly shows that you believed this to be a revert, which would have put you over 3RR. I did not include this diff in the above, because it was not actually a revert. Sławomir Biały (talk)

"If you show me the 4RR I'll revert." [61] "... I'm trying to reach consensus here to prevent edit warring. " [62] Yes, reverts is more broadly defined than that and I've told you that here [63] - see WP:3RR. Repeatedly removing the same content rather (e.g. link to copper antimicrobial) counts.so I was desperate to get you to discuss on the talk. Widefox; talk 14:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, before coming to ANI I asked which were the 3RR and I offered to revert. I still don't know which 3. It only takes a quick look at the talk and timings to see I've been trying to build consensus for controvercial edits/this controvercial topic on the talk (for us all). Widefox; talk 14:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit of general advice to both of you:

When discussing an issue at ANI, long back-and-forth discussion like we see above have a tendency to not have the intended effect, What you are hoping for is and admin carefully reading the long series of comments and ruling in your favor. What you usually get is an admin concluding that the two of you are an annoying time sink at ANI, are likely annoying time-sinks elsewhere, and applying an interaction ban or topic ban to both of you. This happens even if one of you has a far better argument.

A far better way to get the result you desire is to post a single paragraph concisely making yor case with diffs and then to stop commenting other than to answer direct questions. This is true whether you are the one filing an ANI report or the one the report is about. Key point: you don't have to point out any flaws in the other person's arguments, ask for diffs if they are missing, etc. The adnins on this noticeboard do this a lot and don't need to be told that someone made a claim without evidence. Just make your case briefly and succinctly, and let the other fellow go on and on until he rediscovers the law of holes --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

For what little it may be worth, I have also been involved in editing this article trying to work out if the article describes a real useful product or or something else. All the aggravation I have seen has come from the complainant here adding trivial and primary sources and then complaining of harassment here in response to an exasperated exchange of messages which are well within the normal give and take of a Wikipedia talk page discussion. A very short extract of some of the edits from the complainant include:-

• Adding a primary source from Journal of Dentistry here but does also add a robust source from a well known institute here.
• However, he then introduces an M.Sc thesis as a sourcehere . The thesis simply copies KDF literature . Not peer reviewed.
• He unilaterally removes notability tag here. This is marked as unreliable (which it is) but he reverts the unreliable source tags from two unreliable sources here.
• Re-introduces the M.Sc thesis reference here with the explanation ".....this Master's thesis contains a nice (and uncontroversial) description of the mechanism.)"
• Removes the unreliable source tag against the M.Sc thesis ref here with the explanation "(implemented compromise)". The compromise is a one sided compromise and consists of a talk page sentence here saying"I still don't see why the source can't just be left in? Is there a reason that it must be removed? I have looked at WP:RS and can find nothing about removal of sources. Yet your entire rationale for removing the source appears to be "A masters' thesis is unreliable, and therefore must be removed." It is the second part of this sentence that I can find no justification for. The actual article content is not challenged, so what is the harm in the source? "

And so the saga continued. My personal view is that the complainant has, at best, been persistently unhelpful to the extent that I have stood away from the article to wait for the air to clear. Widefox has taken a different approach and tackled the issues head-on but I see the cause as great frustration rather than edit warring to protect an entrenched position.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Similar to Velella, I was involved in editing this article, but eventually withdrew from discussion with Widefox and editing the article, after I felt there was something else going on here. Widefox is far too entrenched in this and I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Toddst1 that I've been too closely editing the article (now stopped). Toddst1 don't you think it's important to explain your level of involvement? Toddst1 accused me of having a COI but provided no evidence (detailed above for which User:Velella advised Toddst1 to retract), but at the same time Toddst1 removed the WP:SPA creator's COI template on the talk saying no evidence! Toddst1 removed a copyvio template, dismissing copyvio out of hand - in total two copyvios were reported by two of us. I correctly recognised this as an copyvio unsourced orphan (a WP:TNT) and CSDed, that was removed. I took to AfD and I withdrew it under duress. Now an expert has taken to AfD a second time. I just came here from the dab I was fixing up! What started as a run-of-the-mill cleanup of a small dab KDF [64] which due diligence means checking if the WP:PTM KDF-55 should be included or not. Hardly COI. Widefox; talk 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that I have been "persistently unhelpful". This is obviously a dramatic improvement in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Summary and offer for all editing parties: Good intentioned editors above have unwittingly been drawn into a contentious topic. Due to a lack of rigorous sources for the full scope of the widespread primary claims this is not easy to write. See my summary in KDF Inc.'s own words the product was originally contentious so this is understandable [65]. The driver is WP:Verifiability, not truth vs WP:TRUTHMATTERS [66] which has resulted from the equally valid polarised positions I describe in the systemic bias essay WP:BOGOF. There's been no edits in 24hrs. ANI isn't the place to solve this. If all parties agree to refrain from accusations, and work out each contended edit on the talk e.g. WP:BRD then do we have a way forward acceptable to all without a poor admin having to mop up? I'm confident an admin could put a template on the talk to help enforce, is there one less strict than a 1RR? Widefox; talk 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I think we can mark this as resolved. For the moment, I have no further interest in editing the article, but agree to abide by 1RR in the near future. I would appreciate Velella's greater involvement if possible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By "less strict than 1RR"...how about putting {{Controversial}} or {{Editnotice-controversial-issues}} on the talk, rather than 1RR. In the meantime, User:Sławomir Biały is the only editor (24 edits [67]) and my caveat is I'd like an assurance from Sławomir Biały about what they consider a "revert" (per 3RR / edit warring) to close this. Widefox; talk 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange that you're apparently complaining about the addition of dozens of high quality references to the article under consideration, apparently attesting that I've made 24 edits that you do not approve of. If you want to add more references, please go ahead and do that. I've already invited you to do just that on the talk page, and as a show of good faith, I even added the single reference that you were able to find on the subject! Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Per Help:Reverting: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." In particular, adding new content (especially references in response to template messages, that also remove the templates) is not a revert. During your disruption at the article in question, you "warned" me more than once against adding references and removing a template. I think this is a reasonable principle, since it is clear that you were actually reverting without adding content to the article, while I actually added almost all of the references that are currently there. There is a clear difference here between a "productive editor" (myself) and a "disruptive editor" (you) in this matter. I'm willing to work collaboratively, if you're willing to adhere to this pretty straightforward guide. You can revert once, but other changes must be substantial. This requires that you also do a bit of work. I know you wrote WP:BOGOF to head off any responsibility when it comes to adding content. After all, it's easy to revert, but hard to do research. So why not just revert productive editors and "warn" them, instead of coming up with references that meet your own rather high standards? Absent any evidence to these proceedings on your behalf, as far as I can tell in the entire history of my edits to the page, I have made precisely one revert, while you have made at least four reverts under the strict definition, while disruptively "warning" me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree to the actual policy at WP:3RR An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis own) ? and just to be clear this is 3RR & BRD not 1RR (which I've never suggested or agreed to). Widefox; talk 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that adding new content is not a revert? Also, do you agree that your warnings consistute harassment under the WP:HUSH guideline, and your edit-warring to include maintenance templates was disruptive according to the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS policy? Do you agree to work productively, rather than continue your campaign of disruption and harassment? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if User:Widefox could identify an actually substantive contribution to the article since the time I made the first edit to the article. I think that would add to the case that he is not editing disruptively. As anyone can see, the difference between this revision and this revision is enormous, and almost entirely due to me, in spite of Widefox's attempts to threaten and harass me. Here he seems to pay lipservice to the idea of "collaboration", but I do not see evidence of it, and the latest round of Wikilawyering does not fill me with confidence. If his behavior does not improve, since productive editors (me) have identified his behavior as disruptive, then I think the community should consider a temporary ban on his editing the article under discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sławomir Biały Are we all agreeing to 3RR policy or not? Simple question. Widefox; talk 10:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to continue abiding by WP:3RR. Understand that if you do not start abiding by the guideline, you will probably be blocked without warning. What's not clear is that you agree to abstain from the other behaviors that resulted in this inquest. Do you agree to follow WP:HUSH and WP:DISRUPT policy, in addition to WP:3RR? Remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and petty bullshit like the behavior that I have shown in the diffs of the complaint simply will not be tolerated. If you agree to abide by our behavioral guidelines, then I am willing to mark this as resolved. However, so far you have not done so, and your latest posts do not fill me with confidence. I do not think we can yet mark this as closed. I presented some clear diffs of disruptive behavior in the original complaint, and so far this noticeboard has not followed up on it. Given that they are serious allegations, and you have not yet agreed to abide by our behavioral guidelines, the complaint still stands. 11:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Dangerous Khiladi 5

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

---

I moved this user's article, Suntalilai Bhagai Lagyo Jhilkele, to draftspace because I heard that they wanted to work on it, but they keep repeatedly reverting me and doing a copy-paste move back to mainspace. The article has zero sources. I regret getting involved in this and don't have the time and patience to handle this, so I'd appreciate if someone else helped. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you posting this from an account different to the one under which you carried out the moves to draft space? --Elektrik Fanne 15:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: What are you talking about? It's the same account, the signature is stylized as lowercase. That other account is just a doppelganger to receive pings when people don't capitalize my username. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I just found the two different accounts and just (incorrectly) assumed that you had done what a lot of sock masters do which is create sock accounts with names very similar to the master's account. Sorry about that. --Elektrik Fanne 16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that this account appears to be a loudly quacking sockpuppet of blocked user Sarojupreti. --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. I expected something like that to be the case. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• If the user is a block-evading sock, please notify SPI or one of the regular admins there. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Problem with the added of the link of the youtube page at the article Propuesta Indecente‎

Hello, a few days ago I added the link of the official video of "Propuesta Indecente" because I think relevant because already reached the billion of visits, but reversing they arrived a couple of users.

Between these, @Sundayclose: that reverses, saying that violate WP:ELNO, but I read the 19 rules and I believe that none of these infringe on video.

Also send them a message here, here and here at 2 users who manage a bot (which initially also reversed me), for further explanation, but yet did not I get any response. And long after one of them (@Beetstra:) decided to reverse without giving explanation as mentioned above.

My request is: Why I can not add the video link of the official website of Romeo Santtos on YouTube, to the article of the same?, as this is feasible and is not a link file type that may be subject to the copyright policy in Wikipedia, as they say. Thank you.

Sorry for the pronunciation of English, but I do not use it repetitively. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note the many edits of 186.84.46.227 that have no effect on the page rendering, and quite a few edits that break links, templates, etc. When I asked him to stop his null-edits, he reverted me and responded with an generic warning on my talk. Note the edit summary claiming Twinkle use, I doubt it. Maybe CIR ? 80.132.69.36 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Because in some edit summaries I say: «fix», because they are minimal but beneficial editions; And that "break links" is a lie because I can see that I have not done such a thing . Wikipedia for what I do I do not consider harmful because as you say, " have no effect on the representation of the page". --186.84.46.227 (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@186.84.46.227: Stop making edits that only add or remove space, re-order template and otherwise have no visible effect on the page. Now. Please. You've been asked several times. There are three reasons:

• They're not improvements to the articles.
• They add noise to the page history and make it much harder to find where significant changes were made.
• They make it look like you're just trying to make your edit count bigger. No matter what your actual intention is, that's what it looks like.

You've been asked to stop it several times now, so please stop. If you don't, I expect a block will be forthcoming and we'll see if that gets the message through. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is shifting the topic. The problem itself, is on the validity on YouTube urls to be added to the articles of songs by artists, and if they violate the rules or not in Wikipedia. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is WP:ELOFFICIAL, if the YouTube channel is controlled by the subject and is directly relevant to the article, thats where it falls. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: 48-hour Block

@186.84.46.227: You've been asked repeatedly and with a long explanation why to stop making null edits, but you keep on doing it 7 8. We also don't need another editor making personal attacks. I propose a 48-hour block to immediately prevent pollution of edit histories and (hopefully!) get the message through that this type of editing is disruptive and not welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken resorting to personal attacks and refusing discussion in order to prevent editing an article

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

---

User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A couple of months ago Beyond My Ken reverted an edit of mine; that's okay, that's what the WP:BRD process is for. I've waited months for a reply to our discussion, no luck. Decided to edit the article again, got reverted by BMK again, this time under the claim that they're POV edits. I have requested BMK to clarify, out of the five edits he reverted, why three in particular are POV edits (1, 2, 3) (Aside from those three, there are two edits he disputes as "combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones", which I'd hoped he'd address separately). He insists that this was discussed (it wasn't) and that since an apparent acquaintance of his re-reverted my edits after him, it's now the consensus. On top of it all he resorted to personal attacks ("you must be exceedingly intelligent and perceptive", "your attraction to My Little Pony must be sn of aberration of some kind", "please find something else to do – maybe there's some hot news in the My Little Pony world that needs dealing with"). He's de-facto preventing the edits by declaring that they're POV edits and refusing to discuss them. He is being authoritative ("this subject has been discussed and dismissed" - when? By whom? "clear talk page consensus" - where?) and avoiding discussion.

He requested me not to ping him and not to use his talk page, if some administrator could notify him of this discussion that would be great. Preferably an impartial administrator who's not an acquaintance of his.Furry-friend (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Friendly advice to Furry-friend: If you should find yourself in this situation again (and I hope you don't) you are obliged to make a notification on the editor's Talk page of your opening the thread here. This over-rules the editor's ban of you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggested a g trouting for this WP:SPA on the edit warring notice board, I think a wp:Boomerang, but not thrown hard, for this specious vexatious attack. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More unfounded accusations. Really easy to personally attack me instead of addressing the issue. Furry-friend (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Especially problematic coming from an acquaintance of BMK. Furry-friend (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend, BMK has around 150,000 edits on Wikipedia going back seven years, and as with everyone else in that situation virtually any editor who's even vaguely active on Wikipedia will be an acquaintance of his; Wikipedia only has around 3000 active editors, and aside for a few who stick to a particular field of interest, they all run across each other in the end. Regardless of the merits (or not) of your complaint, if I see another attempt by you to play the man and not the ball or to insinuate without evidence that anyone who happens to disagree with you is part of a conspiracy against you, I'm going to start dishing out civility blocks. If you really want to do this by the book, I can stick a {{uw-npa4im}} on your talkpage to make it official. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

notified Mdann52 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. I have the article on my watchlist and took a look at the discussion earlier. If we're talking about playing the man and not the ball, BMK is hardly blameless in that area. There is avoiding of discussing content changes, reference to a consensus "above" I can't find, and this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: That's not my intention. I was worried I'm being strong-armed by-proxy, but if you believe this is not the case I'll drop it. I would like the issue to be addressed:

• Are these three edits (1, 2, 3) POV-edits?
• Was there discussion that these are POV edits? Did the discussion reach consensus?
• Was BMK right in reverting these edits as POV edits and then claiming they have already been discussed?
• Was I "arguing ad-infinitum" by asking the person who reverted my edits to explain the revert?

I believe BMK appealed to his own authority and deliberately avoided discussion to keep his preferred version of the article. I would very much like the merits of my complaint to be looked at instead of insinuations and personal attacks. Furry-friend (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Roxy the dog: I find your criticism of Furry-friend unwarranted. SPA: If this user's edits are primarily in a narrow topic area, that doesn't diminish whatever merit there may be to the complaint. The issue raised by Furry-friend should be discussed on the merits and let the chips fall where they may. To call it specious and vexatious is an attempt to dismiss it without discussing the merits, which particularly ironic as Furry-friend posting here at AN/I is a complaint that elsewhere, there is an attempt to dismiss a discussion without discussing the merits. Let's stick to the issue raised by Furry-friend and avoid this kind of rhetorical suppression of discussion.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Getting to the meat of the above query about whether three particular edits were POV. The first, 1, removal of an UNRELIABLE-BLOG tag placed to discredit a footnote, an extensive, well written, documented Word Press blog column by a psychologist, I absolutely do NOT find to be a POV edit. One may reasonably differ as to whether such self-published sources of sufficient quality to be used on WP. This one clearly is, in my opinion. Removing such a tag is not a POV action, it is an expression of disagreement of opinion.

Questioned edit 2, 2, is a pretty weak source to base generalizations upon, an interview with a single individual, even though it is published and thus is a higher level source than #1 above according to WP's peculiar doctrine surrounding sourcing. I don't find the specific change of wording in the diff to be objectionable in the least (quite the contrary), but do wonder whether it is appropriate to generalize based on a single opinion rather than any sort of broader study. Questioned edit 3, 3, appears to be a continuation of Questioned edit 2, same observation holds true. In short, the blog-published, academically-informed piece by the psychologist is a much better source than the interview with one individual published in the local Ann Arbor alternative weekly. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• If BMK could please provide a diff to support his claim of a clear talk page consensus, it would certainly help in evaluating if the OP is indeed editing against an established consensus. Because editing against a "clear talk page consensus" is disruptive, and likewise, accusing someone of editing against a "clear talk page consensus", when there is no such consensus, is disruptive as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed the talk page in question; unless I'm missing something I don't see consensus. There's barely any discussion on that talk page at all, unless you count BMK warning Furry-Friend to not contact him again. Here's this, where BMK explains his edit. Furry-Friend disputes BMK's characterization of some of his edits. BMK asserts that another editor agrees with him (BMK), therefore the discussion is over. Although not stated outright, that must refer to this revert by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs). The edit summary "rv" isn't helpful; I'd expect to see that when reverting vandalism, not during a content dispute. Furry-Friend makes a follow-up post documenting his edits in detail and explaining the purpose of each. Instead of replying in depth, BMK unilaterally ends the discussion. That's not how collaborative editing works. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The abbreviation "rv" just means "revert[ed]" -- there's nothing wrong with that edit summary, and as I read it it simply means he was in agreement with the previous revert. It's up to the original BOLD editor to achieve article-talk page consensus when reverted, so that edit and edit-summary seemed to be quite in order. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm familiar with the abbreviation and in this context it means nothing. If Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has views on the content then they should drop by the talk page and say so. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note to Furry-friend: This is how you achieve consensus: WP:BRD. You should not ever go to a user talk-page. Discuss only on the article talk page, and await consensus. If discussion stalls on the article-talk page, then apply the precise steps of WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If discussion is not stalling but nonetheless WP:CONSENSUS is not clear or is deadlocked, then apply WP:DR. If you apply all of these steps/guidelines, everything will be in order. Do not focus on or discuss other editors or their behavior; discuss content only. This sort of content dispute does not belong on ANI, and wastes everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• The comments Furry-friend links to here are certainly both rude and undignified. The correct response to that kind of thing is always to simply ignore it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: In hindsight it was definitely a mistake to use a user's talk page; the editing dispute was with a single editor so I assumed it would be much quicker to resolve it by discussing it with them directly. Maybe things would have gone differently if I used the article's talk page instead. However, there is an incident now, and maybe addressing this sort of behavior is not a waste of everyone's time. It's not an optimal use of everyone's time, but maybe not a waste... You can see I tried to steer both the user talk page discussion and the article talk page discussion to be directly about the content, but I was met with authoritative replies. You can be sure any future editing disputes will be discussed exactly the way you outlined. Furry-friend (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a waste of time (and you could in fact receive a WP:BOOMERANG), especially if you don't learn from it. ANI is not for content disputes; neither are user talk pages. Moreover, your section headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral, always focusing on other editors and their behaviors instead of content only. Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you give me examples of these edits that focus on editors instead of the content? You can do it on my talk page so this discussion isn't overloaded with them. Furry-friend (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

They're all out there for anyone to see. If you can't see them, then please read #3 here: [68]. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you, as a personal favor to me, point them out to me? When I look at my edit summaries and section headers I see discussion of the content, not any editors. That's why your input would be useful. Furry-friend (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Furry-friend, I will not; this thread is, as I've said, already a waste of time (not just for me, but for the community). If you can't figure it out after all of the guidance and links you've been given here, then I am concerned for your level of competence, and you might want to undergo mentoring. I'm not personally interested in being a mentor. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes me sad. You accuse me of using "headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral, always focusing on other editors and their behaviors" which feels unsubstantiated when instead of pointing them out you just accuse me of incompetence, when I'm asking for your help. Furry-friend (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've no involvement in this, but I have interacted with BMK once before quite a while ago on one of these noticeboards. From my first impressions, as well as reading reports regarding his behavior that were raised on the noticeboards after that interaction, he appears to be a very hot-headed user who can be hostile toward other editors who don't agree with him, or at least that's the vibe I'm getting. He has no right to demand users stay off his talk page and then yell at them when they try to discuss an issue with him—I mean, that's the point of Wikipedia, especially in regard to resolving disputes. I should know as I went through this myself back in my more immature days before my indefinite block. He can ask them nicely if they would leave his talk page, but he can't demand it. And resorting to personal attacks—or, at the very least, uncivil comments—is definitely not the way to get it done. At this point, I would be willing to support quite a lengthy block based on his behavior and recent reports. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  That's correct in the sense that Wikipedia neither can nor should enforce a user's wish that another user not post to his talk page, but if an editor wants a particular user not to post on his talk page that badly, surely there is no point in his doing so anyway? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors can certainly ban other editors from their talk pages. Discussing article issues belongs on article talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't really mean they have to listen. As FKC mentions above, there's no point in it if the user who banned the other user won't listen, anyway, but users' user pages don't truly belong to them. They are still part of Wikipedia. As for discussions, that doesn't mean user talk pages can't be used. I've seen no guidelines explicitly prohibiting such a thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes in fact it does mean they need to listen (except for required notices), and if they don't listen they can be reported to admins and the TP ban can be formalized (and other sanctions can ensue if admins determine that to be necessary). Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(multiEC) I'm on a mobile device so this is a quick comment but as far as I can tell the OP's first real attempt to "discuss" which is a key part of BRD, was on the 2 July. At least these are the first article talk page comments I see that appear related, earlier ones look unrelated or resolved or at least lacking followup by the OP. This was followed up with more detailed commentary yesterday. BMK replied after that as did another editor (both threads have discussion). This isn't ideal IF there were reverts for a while in between, but isn't long enough to sanction. As I've said before and will say again, complainers about no discussion need to demonstrate they've made ample attempts to discuss. This means explanation on the article talk page by you. Arguments over who should have initiated discussion are rarely helpful for specific cases. Similarly, comments to an editors talk page are secondary unless it's about generalised editor behaviour rather than a dispute over article edits. So no talk page comments from you = no complaining over another editor failing to discuss (at least a specific case). EOS. (At least I'm not ending up on an empty article talk page, or empty before this ANI as often the case.) P.S. The WP:content dispute can be resolved via normal means i.e. not here but article talk page and some form of WP:Dispute resolution if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That was the mobile-device-quick-comment version??? EEng 14:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close. This is a content dispute. Discussion only started on the article's talk page 4.5 hours before this ANI was opened. As this is a content dispute, I suggest closing this thread with no action, before a boomerang ensues upon the OP for abusing noticeboards (both ANEW and ANI). Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about an incident that stemmed from a content dispute. The content dispute itself is being settled very productively on the article talk page now that other editors are involved. The incident is a separate issue. Furry-friend (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI is for long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means. You are the party that initiated the problem by making BOLD edits and then reverting without WP:CONSENSUS. I realize you are new to ANI, but the term "Incidents" in the title of the noticeboard does NOT mean that every single time someone's feelings are hurt or a harsh word is spoken or you didn't get your way or you got reverted or someone ignored your user-talk response is to be reported here. Only major, longstanding, truly problematical situations belong here, not single "incidents". Any way you look at it, this is a clear content dispute, that was handled the wrong way, by you. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents about an editor's conduct on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Furry-friend (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: I realize you are new to ANI and also an inexperienced editor with only 250 edits, but ANI is for long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means. The term "Incidents" in the title of the noticeboard does NOT mean that every single time someone's feelings are hurt or a harsh word is spoken or you didn't get your way or you got reverted or someone ignored your user-talk response is to be reported here. Only major, longstanding, truly problematical situations belong here, not single "incidents". Any way you look at it, this is a clear content dispute, that was handled the wrong way, by you. There is nothing whatsoever here that requires "the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", except perhaps your repeated refusal to take in the advice of administrators and experienced editors in this thread and on ANEW, for which refusal and time-wasting at this point I personally would support a boomerang as a consequence, such boomerang being either a block for WP:DE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT, and/or a topic-ban from Furry-related topics, broadly construed for WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to Softlavender, I disagree with several points of this analysis. I do not agree that Furry-friend initiated the problem, or that the issue under consideration is that someone's feelings are hurt. Softlavender uses the idiom "any way you look at it", but it might be more correct if Softlavender had written "any way I look at it". Furry-friend's complaint is not a content dispute. Furry-friend's complaint is that other party or parties attempted to resolve content disputes not on the merits but by, among other things, claiming the existence of a consensus that is not in evidence. Moreover, even should it be determined that the issues raised by Furry-friend are not appropriate for AN/I, or are not ripe for AN/I, I think the threat of a block is unduly harsh. I do not think Furry-friend has practiced disruptive editing; I do not think Furry-friend is incompetent; I do not think Furry-friend has failed to "get the point"; I do not think that, from the fact that most of Furry-friend's edits have been on Furry-related topics, it is valid to conclude unacceptable bias or conflict of interest. —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I would like to hear BMK's justification for his posts. Softlavender seems to be shielding BMK with their unjustifiable boomerang threats, topic bans, and talk of "abusing" noticeboards - I know not why. Isaidnoway has it right, 'Editing against a "clear talk page consensus" is disruptive, and likewise, accusing someone of editing against a "clear talk page consensus", when there is no such consensus, is disruptive as well.' --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Also oppose; this is first and foremost a conduct dispute. I find Softlavender's approach to this matter strange and unhelpful and I wonder if he's reading the same talk page as everyone else. I've worked successfully with BMK before but he's hot-tempered and a chronic edit warrior, and here he's doing it again. This is the definition of a matter to be considered at ANI; we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. Confronted with BMK's hostile and high-handed behavior Furry-Friend wandered over to ANI looking for help and gets yelled at for his pains. He's using the article talk page, but BMK isn't. In fact, BMK is refusing to engage on the article talk page, let also his own talk page. If there's someone behaving in a problematic fashion it's not Furry-Friend, and don't see that he's wasting anyone's time. Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I agree. We shouldn't be biting new users asking for help. It's obvious Furry is familiar with Wikipedia as they tried the other standard methods first before coming here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As a note, here's the history on 30th Street Station at roughly the same time, in which BMK starts edit-warring with Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs), an experienced and competent Wikipedian (whom I hope will forgive me for dragging him into this). Note the interaction at User talk:Beyond My Ken#30th Street Station. Pi.1415926535 makes a lengthy statement justifying his edit; BMK accuses him of personal animus and refuses to address the bulk of Pi.1415926535's comment. There's a common thread to these normal editing scenarios descending into confrontation and edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at that: BMK is absent until the 10th. There is no hurry to close this discussion, especially since BMK is absent. Furry-friend (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

While I probably bear some of the blame for that interaction - I made some assumptions about BMK's WP:OWN behavior which are probably correct but perhaps I should not have brought them up immediately - it's very troubling indeed to realize that this appears to be an issue not limited either to one article or to my interaction with them. As I pointed out on their user talk page (which I went to because it was a conduct question regarding their responses to my edits, moreso than technical merits for the talk page), their tendency towards leaving no or highly dismissive edit summaries even when reverting clearly good-faith edits by competent editors is not a proper way to interact with other editors. They no-comment reverted a technical edit I made - which appears to be to show that BMK treats any edit they don't like (even when correct - my edit was a direct implementation of WP:MOSIMAGES) as though they are disruptive. While most of BMK's content contributions are positive, their refusal to work or talk with editors they disagree with is out of line. I hope this can be resolved with them making an effort to interact positively, but I'm not sure that is the case. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I also would oppose any boomerang. I understand it can be vexing to need to explain things that seem obvious but if someone is actively asking for advice that is the opposite of a problem in my experience. It's down right an oddity to me that people want to bite the help out of a new polite editor that is trying to do the right thing. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose any boomerang as well. Softlavender says up above that this board is for " long-term, longstanding problematical behaviors that stretch over time and have not been able to be resolved by any other means". Well besides this report, here are two more that were filed in the last thirty days where editors have expressed concern with BMK being "combative and unwilling to collaborate" and "incivility". June 22 2016 and June 16 2016. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that BMK dial it back a little bit so this problematic behavior doesn't continue to recur.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the June 22 example also includes a demand by BMK to stay off their talk page, and similarly includes a Move to Close by Softlavendar (less than seven hours after the complaint was raised). That conversation further includes charges that this is a long-standing pattern -- and Softlavendar concedes that may be the case! Pattern? This is like a full replay of two weeks ago. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a new situation; I don't know that everyone who participates on this board views it as a problem. See [69] for a previous, lengthy discussion from 2012 (which went nowhere) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald from 2008. I'm not particularly invested in seeing this "solved" one way or another; but I'm tired of seeing people have the experience of editing one of BMK's articles for the first time (in a manner he doesn't approve of) turn up here looking for advice. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang. This is not a content dispute, it's a discussion and conduct dispute. The content dispute was resolved when Furry-friend went to the talk page and started a discussion at Talk:Furry_fandom#Re:_POV_edits. The first response by BMK is at least on point as to whether or not they are POV and then there's another reversion by someone else no discussion and then we get into this routine of "look above, it's discussed"/"don't bother to ask because it's 'been discussed"/"don't revert me but don't ask me either because it's 'been discussed'." Even if it has been discussed, WP:BITE at a bare minimum would require that someone actually just link to the prior discussion because I don't see where it is. There's 16 archived talk pages; if it has been discussed, it would be simply enough for someone to point out where rather than make demands that you not be disturbed while you revert other people's comments. And frankly, anyone who gets that angry over being pinged to a talk page they are editing on probably needs to go away from that topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've prevented archiving of this topic (properly, I hope) so BMK can respond when he gets back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• General question -- Is a user who has been around for 5 years, but only has 275 edits, considered new? This may be useful for reports in the future. --MuZemike 04:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see that Furryfriend is wrong in any way here. I find Softlavender's hostility to be off-putting at a minimum in addition to being very puzzling. As for "long-term problematic behavior," we have seen BMK here again and again, so even that very unusual interpretation of AN/I doesn't hold water as basis for an objection to this thread. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Carrite: In my opinion, I wouldn't exactly call Softlavender's behavior hostile. Perhaps a bit bite-y, but not hostile. Compared to BMK's behavior, which I do feel is hostile, SL's comments aren't that bad. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Close & boomerang I've had a run in with BMK in the past, so I'm most certainly not biased in his favor, but this is a content dispute and does not belong on ANI and BMK was not in the wrong. Furryfriend is a single purpose account with a POV to push, and he took offence to having this pointed out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Spacecowboy420: I'm shocked to hear that, even after reading this thread, you believe BMK has done nothing wrong and it's all Furry's fault. This is a conduct dispute, plain and simple. The content dispute was already resolved as Ricky81682 stated above. Furry has done nothing wrong here; BMK has been the one being hostile and hot-tempered against anyone who disagrees with him, and it's absolutely inexusable to be like that toward a new editor. However, that and edit warring are apparently perfectly okay, so why bother having rules and guidelines? Let's just throw them all out the window. If you can't follow guidelines, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I should know. Just one look at my block log will show anyone that I used to be a chronic edit warrior myself and that eventually led to an indefinite block. However, I eventually got it and now I've been back since May 2012. Obviously, BMK hasn't learned his lesson yet and it's going to take quite a lengthy or indefinite block, and even then, there's always the chance you'll have that editor who can never admit that perhaps they need to change. I hate to see that happen to fellow editors, especially to those who otherwise have positives, but it must be done to prevent further disruption and protect Wikipedia. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang over to BMK - but don't close yet, let him respond BMK claims consensus, but there is none on this page supporting him. Also, telling an editor not to contact him on his talk page violates BRD. Yes, I could see that being enforced if FurryFriend was being disruptive, but he (I'm assuming ) isn't. He's asking BMK to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he's removing his edits and he's getting none, instead BMK is attempting to shutdown the discussion. Yes, I know users can ask not to be contacted, however, this is not to be used as sledgehammer to shut down discussion as BMK is trying to do. Sorry, he's wrong.KoshVorlon 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"...telling an editor not to contact him on his talk page violates BRD": Negative. The discussion should take place on the article talkpage, not either editor's page, where BRD is pretty irrelevant. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Is there a guideline that says this? I haven't seen one, and if that's the case, there's nothing explicitly prohibiting the use of user talk pages in cases like this, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Either way, my complaint is not about BMK telling me not to contact him; it's about his use of this method to de-facto enforce his preferred version of the article, justified through "clear talk page consensus" that doesn't exist. As this (ANI) discussion progressed, more instances arose of BMK using similar methods. The pattern is to dismiss any discussion past the first comment and refuse further discussion towards consensus, sometimes accompanied by personal attacks and threats of escalating the issue into a conduct issue, and "banning" people from pinging BMK or using his talk page. Furry-friend (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Essay WP:BRD: "You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page". Policy WP:OWNTALK: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user" and "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." However, I can see how using an editor's user talk page can be counter-productive because it is less visible than the article talk page. Still, it is a valid option according to policy. Furry-friend (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose boomerang I am seeing some logical inconsistency here. On the one hand, it is being argued that this noticeboard should only be used for reporting an editor when there has been repeated, long-term disruptive behaviour. Then on the other hand, there have been calls for a boomerang and sanctions for the OP, when they (as far as I can tell) have never raised an AN/I before this thread. If the OP had been making multiple disruptive posts on noticeboards, a boomerang may be deserved, but starting a single thread - a single "incident" - I think not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Propose close as this really isn't going anywhere; it has been established that this is a content dispute and as such should be non-resident on this page. Further cyclical deliberations will probably just look like a pound of flesh is being sought. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC) _Muffled ^Pocketed
  • I'm not convinced this is just a content issue. Postings above indicate editors and admins are getting fed up with having to deal with BMK's long-term approach to editing and content disputes. Perhaps a pound of flesh is required when an editor feels it is OK to leave edit summaries such as "my god you are a pain in the ass, and obviously know absolutely nothing about this subject". DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "it has been established that this is a content dispute" - by whom? I think you hold the minority viewpoint here. Though I wish editors would hold off commenting further until BMK has had his say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, insofar as I actually WP:DGAF Template:WINK (thus, holding no viewpoint akin to that, and certainly not a minority one), I think this could be closed before Beyond My Ken does get back. Why let an editor's IRL absence tie our hands? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Because he still deserves a fair say in this? It is a report on him after all. Just because he's in the wrong doesn't mean this should be closed and/or he should be blocked without him getting a chance to provide his testimony. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed a block for BMK. However I'm getting a sense that a clear warning would be supported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Amaury does, saying "it's going to take quite a lengthy or indefinite block." _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I was not officially suggesting a block, I was saying that that's what it may take for him to get the message that his edit warring is not okay. It may end up coming to that point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since when and by whom? There's a good half-dozen editors who think there's a conduct issue involving BMK. Please don't assert the existence of consensus where none exists, particularly when you're an involved party. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Do not boomerang Ken frankly has gotten away too often with personal attacks (examples included above) and has previously had more than enough warnings not to continue his hostility. His arrogant and belittling demeanor is very problematic and unjustifiable. His "I've been around longer so I'm better than you" attitude (as seen here) is by no means appropriate either. I would definitely support blocking him for long term civility issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang and oppose close, three threads in what two weeks? that's worrisome to me, and what's frankly just as worrying is the response some editors (and even admins) have had. This is now a conduct issue, if three threads doesn't constitute a conduct issue (except where they're bogus) then what does.

  Off-topic but relevantSoftlavender, there's several things you've said above that either 1. aren't correct (re-read BRD, article talk page (preferred) or user talk page), or 2. aren't appropriate. Specifcally, You accused Furry-friend of "Moreover, your section headers and comments and edit summaries on the article and its talk page were all non-neutral", I couldn't find any evidence of this, and when Furry-friend asked for help (I would have asked for proof), you respond with "I am concerned for your level of competence, and you might want to undergo mentoring." The mentoring part is fine in terms of Wikipedia (but not elsewhere since it suggests mental health issues) but the competence accusation, I'd like yours please, show me the evidence to back your accusations or please, strike the comment.

  To other editors; Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but has a single editor who has mentioned boomerang or any sanction of any kind, brought forth even a shred of evidence that it is deserved. If the response is no I haven't brought any evidence of misbehaviour on Furry-friends part, then sit down and grab yourself a trout.

  Lastly on the topic of close; three threads across as many weeks (or less), I don't think any sanctions are in order, but I'd want BMK to at least make a better effort in corresponding with other editors, even those whom he doesn't particularly like, unless he has a good reason for it, such as they've actually misbehaved. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with the above, in particular Softlavender's behavior in this thread. It's automatic on this page to request diffs to support any assertion of misbehavior. When Softlavender was quite politely asked for those diffs by the user they were accusing, they declared that they are not interested in mentoring. WTF? Softlavender, have you considered taking a break from ANI for awhile? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL

This isn't a character assassination, or about historic "incivility issues"; it's about this incident and this incident only. Cassianto^Talk 21:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: That's not how it works. An editor's previous behavior and reports must be taken into account to see if it's part of a pattern or just an isolated issue. If the former, then that generally can't just be let go with a simple WP:BOOMERANG or WP:TROUT. There have to be consequences for bad behavior. So no, it's not only about this issue. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, according to you, it's fair that you keep getting punished for things that you've already been punished for? That sounds about right for a kangaroo court. Cassianto^Talk 22:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No it is about preventing someone from doing the same thing repeatedly. It is about recognizing the difference between a one off mistake and something likely to continue repeating. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 22:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Is there any way to move Cassianto's sub-discussion to another talk page? It's spun far and away from the main discussion's topic. Furry-friend (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I try not to moderate discussions I am involved in. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe another section/sub-section but no I don't think it can or should be moved to another page. This happens quite often at AN/I, a few editors disagree and next minute you have an essay about nothing in particular written by nobody in particular. This isn't quite the case here because its relatively on topic (BMK) but it's fairly normal. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you and Cassianto mind if I put this discussion under a "WP:PERSONAL" subheader? Furry-friend (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, Cassianto I think has dropped the mic, somewhere below, so feel free to move unless he says otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

He's yet be punished for his behaviour, like, at all. That's why we're having this discussion, his record is piling up and nobody has done anything about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

e/c Admins have tried to deal with BMK's disruptive behaviour before - see his block log here.[70] It is clear that short term blocks are not working in protecting the project from the personal insults and disruptive editing by this editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the past several weeks and months, the last two blocks were cancelled within hours. One was an accident the other a 72 hour one that was dropped the same day. I get what you're saying though. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As per HighinBC, we shouldn't be blocking anyone at all as a punishment, we should be blocking to prevent something. I think you need to re-read the rules. Blocking BMK here would seem like punishment, and that's not on. Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but my position does not support yours. Our blocking policy specifically lists "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" as prevention. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It does inasmuch that "[it] is about preventing someone from doing the same thing repeatedly." But as we all know, your blocks are personal. Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about my behaviour you are welcome on my talk page. I am not getting dragged into this in a place where it is off topic. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So his long-term edit warring and personal attacks are perfectly okay and there shouldn't be consequences for them? Got it. Guess you learn something new every day. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you report them at the time and deal with that one and only incident, not take into account every little disagreement somone has had in the time that they've been here, every time they get paraded at ANI. IMO, edit warring is entirely justified in certain cases, as is incivility. It's the unjust way that it is policed which is the real cancer around here. Cassianto^Talk 22:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, are you really suggesting that incivility can be justified? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity in what I said. You must read my comment more carefully. Cassianto^Talk 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, do you agree to editing in violation of Wikipedia:Five pillars? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen my block log? That should tell you all you need to know, Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I had not looked at your block log before so thank you for alerting us to that. I don't think an editor with a block log of similar length to BMK is doing much to support BMK by indicating how disruptive you have been in the past. Yes, your block log follows you, as does mine. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So because I have a block log of similar length, that disqualifies me from having a word or two to say about unfairness when I see it? I don't know BMK; I don't think we've even edited the same article before. I come here with no agenda. I can't comment on his recent activities, but what I can do is stand up and say that bringing someone's past troubles into a dispute in order to flounce it up, is wrong. That is my only gripe here. Cassianto^Talk 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, if you have such an extensive block log for personal attacks, incendiary behaviour and failing to disengage, maybe that should be a hint that this is not the way to go about doing things. Or are you a huge proponent of DGAF and break all rules? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

With FA's well into their 20's, I would say that Wikipedia needs me more than I need it, so I've never been concerned about being blocked. The pillars exist, sure, put they come secondary to writing good content as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, this isn't about me, so kindly move on. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll move on, but this needs saying. Wikipedia needs good editors true, what it needs more is editors who can collaborate productively, ever hear the saying two heads is better than one? or that the body is more than the sum of its parts? The ancient Greeks knew this, and it hasn't changed since then. You got 20+ articles to FA, that's impressive (seriously it is), the rest have got thousands to FA, that's even more impressive. I have none, only a GA, so both you, and Wikipedia, tower above me in that regard. Point being, your 20+ barely strike a dent in the thousands+. Wikipedia doesn't need me and it doesn't need you it needs us (collectively). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Per, HighinBC and Amaury, BMK's behaviour should be considered for consequences (block, sanction, perhaps nothing but a stern warning, what have you) for long-standing edit-warring (months), personal attacks (wasn't the last thread about the same thing) and civility issues (same as PA). Cassianto, try to understand, when you take some to AN/I, you consider everything, not just that immediate event. Why? because patterns of behaviour are what generally get sanctions for, one offs tend to go with a warning unless its severe or a blatant case of NOTHERE, VANDAL, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly, Mr rnddude! I even have some experience in this and tried the same tactics of saying stuff like "other incidents don't matter" back in my more immature days before my indefinite block to try and weasel out of consequences. Here's a pretty major incident I was involved in back in August 2010 when I was known as Donald Duck that eventually got my rollback rights stripped. I've got no shame sharing that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No. You should not be tried for the same crime twice. A slow burning edit war over the course of a few months is classed as one incident; fine, that can be dealt with. But to say: "this editor has edit warred slowly over the past two months...oh, and they did the same thing last year, and the year before that (which they were blocked for)..." is wrong. Cassianto^Talk 22:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You can keep saying that, but it's not going to make us feel any different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't really give a toss how it makes you feel. It's what I think which is what I'm trying to convey. Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, but you expect us to care how you feel (note that Amaury's use of the word feel is easily replaced with think). Let me spell it out for you; BMK is having all of their relevant behaviour scrutinized and that's not changing because you don't like it. Hope that's clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've asked you to "care how [I] feel", have I? I've merely projected my thoughts and you're entitled to either agree or disagree with them. I couldn't give a shit either way. Cassianto^Talk 23:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously seem to care or you wouldn't be getting worked up over others disagreeing with you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't work out if you're genuinely confused about how little I care, or if you're trying to troll me. Either way, and whatever your agenda, I'm out. Cassianto^Talk 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of trolling when you have no evidence to back it up. Thank you. It was merely an observation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: WP:PERSONAL: "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing." If you want to change this you need to submit WP:RfC. ANI is not the appropriate place for policy discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that helpful little policy you've linked to there. I shall go away and digest it with much excitement and gusto. In the meantime, maybe you could change the title of this thread seeing as we've now established that this has fuck all to do with BMK's recent activities and more to do with assassinating his character overall. Cassianto^Talk 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, you are being denser than a neutron star. This isn't about a character assassination. It's about addressing persistent worrying behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not according to the thread title it's not. Cassianto^Talk 23:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto You removed it but, irony and my last comment up above? did I misunderstand something or miss something? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, Furry-friend is unaware of the problem, they brought theirs and several other editors (incl. me) thought something along the lines of; hang on... again? what's with the repeated pattern of problems? did we miss something, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty sad. I've reverted "Furry-friend"'s unbelievable little contribution here[71]. I can't believe how much time is being wasted on this nonsense thread. Smarten up. Doc talk 12:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, eh... just like this entire thread. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. FWIW you can't replace the experience of an editor like BMK. He's been here for quite a long time. I happen to trust his ability to detect a troll more than anyone commenting in this thread. Seeing editors who have been here just as long as he has fall for this garbage is disheartening. Close this joke. Doc talk 12:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you use the article's talk page to explain why you think a peer-reviewed study published in the journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and cited over 366 times is fringe, and what's unbelievable about it? Furry-friend (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You should be referencing nothing.[72] Doc talk 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871, your behavior is just as poor as BMK's appears to be. If you cannot explain why a seemingly valid source may be questionable, refrain from taking cheap shots at the contributor. Furry-friend, I will explain on the talk page why this source isn't that strong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason these editors have fallen for "this garbage" is because BMK has had three threads here in mere weeks. Some see this as a pattern of disruption. It needed addressing, not sanctioning. The bigger garbage was the call for BOOMERANG, now that, was shameful. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your persistence to hang out to dry a very good editor is shameful. Cassianto^Talk 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

See, the thing Cassianto, is that I quite specifically said above, if you care to find it, is do not sanction BMK, warn him for his behaviour. So if its shameful to ask for a warning for poor behaviour, then I think you need to reconsider your understanding of what is and isn't shameful. I have hung no-one out to dry, not even you, though I had for about 30 minutes. Your thread below, for a start. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive patrolling - Laxnesh LOKEN

Laxnesh LOKEN, a patroller, is engaging into disruptive tagging in the entry Pero Niño, a 15th century privateer. He seems to lack a grasp of any en:wikipedia policy or guideline, which is quite worrying for a patroller. Initially I did ask why the citation style was unclear, and he failed to deliver an answer. After that he started to add random {{unreliable sources}}", {{news release}} and {{notability}} templates (among others), ending his frenzy with a speedy deletion template [73]. He also reported me for vandalism, btw.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Asqueladd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Your page doesn't have reliable sources, give more information and which is not notability for Wikipedia . So I humbly request you to improve it or Admins Please Delete that page. Yours Wiki-Lover --Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: - You are supposed to notify the other party, which I have now done for you. I see that there is some discussion at User talk:Laxnesh LOKEN. I would encourage you to polish the article up a bit more (infobox, captialization, grammar), but appreciate that English is probably not your first language. Is also appears not to be Laxnesh LOKEN's first language. Maybe it might be better if s/he refrained from patrolling? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laxnesh LOKEN: - both sources are quality, reliable sources, being published by top academic institutions in Spain. Sources in English are preferred, but they are not compulsory. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: As you told my mother tongue is Nepali not English . I like contributing Wikipedia . So I hope I will help by patrolling New Pages .Anyway Thanks. Regards --Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - The Spanish language article seems pretty comprehensive. Maybe an editor proficient in both Spanish and English would like to expand the English article? Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I just declined a G11 speedy deletion placed on Boßler Tunnel that was placed by Laxnesh LOKEN. It's an unsourced, poorly translated wall o text from the equivalent dewiki article, but it's not advertising. Please be cautious with the deletion tagging. Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another questionable A1 tag. I suggest that Laxnesh LOKEN carefully review the CSD criteria before tagging any more articles. GAB^gab 19:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Laxnesh LOKEN: You're going around adding tags to articles that do not need them. You added {{news release}} to Pero Niño for some reason I cannot begin to understand; you nominated Kirby Memorial Stakes for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1 when it clearly has context; and you nominated Boßler Tunnel for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 when it's not advertising. Those are just the first three I found. Until and unless you get a better grasp of the concept, you have no business doing new page patrolling. Katie^talk 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

After declining an A7 nomination Laxnesh LOKEN placed on Saint Sernin High School – schools are not eligible for A7 – and noting more disruptive tagging and warning today, I've given him a final warning to stop new page patrolling. He's clearly not capable of performing this task, at least not yet. Katie^talk 20:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for two more mistaggings. Nthep (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

vandal float-IPs whom global locked user

moved this topic from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

one user Akko1948 (talk · contribs), whom grobal locked because of Purpose outside use (propaganda). and this person uses float-IP (kyoto-plala), japanese sysops has used range-block for these IPs. but some IPs still posts to Talk:Choir of JCP-fans and User talk:Alexander Poskrebyshev for some days (my talk page was already reseted).

float-IPs (all range-blocked at japanese wikipedia)

58.95.110.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.110.0/23

58.95.173.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.172.0/23

58.95.248.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 58.95.248.0/23

125.201.4.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 125.201.4.0/23

and this user made another account Italoiaponicus (talk · contribs) and L737E (talk · contribs). Italoiaponicus was also grobal locked, too.

please apply range-block for these float-IPs.--Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I asked the OP to bring this here. I deleted his talk page because the only edits to it were really vicious PAs; similar ones can be found on that article talk page. I have not yet revdel'd those because I'm pretty sure AFD is going to send it away anyway. Katie^talk 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is this something Stewards would be better able to handle since it is a globally locked account that is editing under Different Ips? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Also Note Smallest CIDR range is 58.95.0.0/16, covering 65,536 addresses from 58.95.0.0 to 58.95.255.255 for if any administrators consider a range block. (only in reference to the 58.95.X Ip's) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• these IPs still posts on Talk:Choir of JCP-fans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choir of JCP-fans. and Choir of JCP-fans was removed from German wikipedia. still remains on English, French and Latin (I can't use these languages and am lazy to have discussion). by the way, if some Japanese users feel trouble from range-block, I think thats Japanese should make account, there is no problem. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's enough. 58.95.0.0/16 is a big range, but I blocked it for a week. 48 edits from that range since June 15, almost all personal attacks and disruption. Katie^talk 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Another IP was using the article talk page and the AFD for personal attacks against the OP. After reviewing the AFD, there was no discussion other than these IPs, so I chose to invoke WP:IAR and I closed the AFD as delete. My decision is, of course, open to review and discussion, but I will not tolerate this kind of harassment. Katie^talk 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• 125.201.4.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted on my talk page. please think for applying block-range on 125.201.4.0/23. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC) and othner IP 125.201.4.77 posted personal attack on my french talk page. I think range may broad more, that IP will post on English wikipedia. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ideal75

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

---

Resolved

 – by blocking Ideal75. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ideal75 has started spamming a user's talk page because the user tagged on of Ideal's pages for speedy deletion: here, look in the edit history for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Vasesmuddyne

User:Vasesmuddyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new autoconfirmed editor with about 50 edits according to STiki. It appears the account was created only a very short time ago on July 2, 2016 [74] according to the Welcome template on their talkpage. This user seems to be on a campaign to change information about ethnicities in articles [75].

This person has also copy and pasted established articles into newly created main space articles, making the original a redirect [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. When this happens it appears the article history is lost behind the redirect - as been stated on his talk page by User:Diannaa -- [81] -- and myself [82]. As can be seen by the diffs, User:Diannaa undid one cut and paste move, I undid two others. Also, as can be seen by the diffs, I rolled back un-sourced edits pertaining to ethnicities in the article entitled Syrian Jews.

I still have to go through this persons other contributions looking for more of the same described above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update - it appears the above mentioned editor may have been making corrections regarding a red linked user just prior to their edits on the "Syrian Jews" article [83]. At the moment I don't know who is correct. The previous red linked user seems to have focused on articles regarding Jews - here is that person's contributions page [84]. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now examined all his contribs. He also did a cut and paste move at Tunisian people in Italy, Somali people in Italy, Cuban people in Italy, Dominican people in Italy, Dominican Argentine, and some of the related talk pages. I have undone all of these moves. — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of some socks of serial sockpuppeteer Sprayitchyo. It may be worth checking to see whether this is more than a coincidence. RolandR (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Serial copyright infringement by Aldebaran69

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

---

Aldebaran69 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded another two images with incomplete or inaccurate licensing information (now listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 4#File:Princess Calixta of Lippe.jpg) despite being warned about copyright on multiple occasions from as long ago as 2010: User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#File permission problem with File:Jennifer Grant 2.jpg, User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#Speedy deletion nomination of File:Keni Styles.jpg, and User talk:Aldebaran69/Archive 4#Copyright problems with File:Lady Oscar.jpg. There are a enormous number of such warnings in their talk page archives. Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning". Celia Homeford (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion, so I have done so. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My notification precedes yours by an hour and 40 minutes.[85] Celia Homeford (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. I need more coffee. Rolled back my notification. Thanks for pointing this out. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My sinceres appologies to all this problems, was my mistake in the last two files to correct the copyright; from now on, I would never uploaded any file with such type of problem. Again, my sincere appologies and thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'm always just a ping away . — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely, with a note indicating any admin may unblock the user without consulting me, if Aldebaran69 convinces them that s/he understands our copyright policy. --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:ChrisBlankC

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

---

After being blocked in may due to the adding of unsourced content and copyrights, this user is continuing to do such, as shown by the many, many notices on his talk page. This seems to be a CIR issue. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed with an explanation of how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

More range blocks requested for an LTA vandal

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

---

I'm requesting a series of range blocks for an active LTA vandal. Two of these ranges were previously blocked, but they timed out; disruptive activity continued afterward. You can read about the vandal at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. This vandal adds hoax information to films, generally children's animated films. For example, in Disney's Aladdin, he will change the credits to say that Liam Neeson played the Genie, maybe add a few Rugrats characters to the film, and change the composer to an incorrect name. This has been going on for months now. I have collected several IP addresses used for vandalism in the past week from each range, and linked previous discussions at ANI that resulted in range blocks:

There is little activity on these ranges besides the associated vandalism from this user. Besides the above linked discussions, I requested range blocks for this vandal previously here and here. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Doing... BethNaught (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done with thanks for your continued attention to the case. I gave each range 2 months; this is up from 1 month the last time the IPv6 range was blocked. BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Threats issued by User:Kzl1948

The user in question (Kzl1948 (talk · contribs)) seems to be a football fan intent on presenting his view on the article PFC CSKA Sofia. In the process, he has made a number of threats and threat-like edits such as this one, reading "Touch the page again and I will get you out of anonimity" as well as this one, reading "Just dare touch the page again" (It is clear that this is the same user although editing under IP). Furthermore, his username is a very nasty slur in Bulgarian, one that I will not write here, but it has something to do with inserting a penis into another person. --Laveol ^T 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notified user of this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a nasty slur in Bulgarian? What an efficient language! EEng 18:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Its shortened from the word for penis and also a notoriously popular football chant :( Unfortunately, the language is efficient only when it goes for such stuff. --Laveol ^T 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kzl is a radio look this, I don't know for what "inserting" of something he talk. PFC CSKA Sofia page is under mass vandalism every day. Deleting information from page every day and I and other users fixed it countless times, how you can see from View history. The best will be if page can be protected. -- Kzl1948

The fact that WAVE is a television station does not impact on the fact that it is a hand motion used in greeting. But that is all a red herring. Kzl1948, how about you address the crux of this report, that being that there is documented evidence that you threatened another editor with WP:OUTING? John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see threat, but ok, block me. Lets continue with their vandalism at page. -- Kzl1948 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not going to continue in this discussion because doing so is impossible unless one can read the Cyrillic alphabet language that the OP, the reported editor and others are writing back and forth in. If nothing else comes from this thread, perhaps it can be made clear to all involved parties that this is English Wikipedia and all communication needs to be in English? If you want to communicate in Bulgarian, use email. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to read our conversation, it was a very calm conversation. I understand his point, he is a fan of the team, there are 2 teams fighting each other right now, so for now its good to keep the page. I would suggest to lock PFC CSKA Sofia for a week or two, until the situation is cleared. We all know the reference of "kzl" from a CSKA fen, but i won't comment this. As I got the "threats" from the user, I would suggest to not ban him. We had a talk and everything is alright. -Chris Calvin (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"No need to read our conversation"? I'm sorry but policy is clear. All communication is to be in English. How the hell do you figure it is up to you to decide who gets to read your conversation and edit summaries? That is OWN in the extreme. YOU are saying that unless you speak whatever language that is, you have no right to participate in the discussion, which is completely counter to every principle Wikipedia is based upon. You are 100% wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ment "Don't read our conversation", I ment that there is nothing more in our conversation helping that case. I asked him to be calmer and to stop make this edits, since its not quite sure is he right or others. Then he write me that he is sorry, that he is a fan of the team and its hard for him to read all this "vandalism" he need to delete every day and propose to keep PFC CSKA Sofia for the renamed team of Litex - now CSKA-Sofia and to make a new one for the original club. I respond that this is not the way its going to happend, since wathever he believe there is no way a new team to gain the title and the history of other club and more, to move this team on a new article with no history. Here, thats what we have spoked about. We used bulgarian since we wanted to clean up everything fast, I didn't expect to be opened a case. -Chris Calvin (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Scema12 Vandalism

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

---

Scema12 is vandalizing a bunch of different pages (check contributions page) all over the wiki and has more than a few vandalism warnings on their talk page (although no recent warnings.) I believe this person is here to harm the encyclopedia and request a block before more damage is done. Notifying them now Tivanir2 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at the wrong page for contributions and that is my bad but it doesn't excuse the first act of return being vandalism after being told last to stop doing it. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are their contribs, for easy checking. Scema12 (talk · contribs) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, and I deleted that disgusting image. Katie^talk 19:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick resolution. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Comment from JordanianExpert

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

---

I am new here, so, if I make any mistakes, please alert me and I shall abide, I am here to report user Makeandtoss, he has been violating Wikipedia guidelines for the page” Mudar Zahran” ALSO, I am trying to notify him here that I am reporting him, if it does not work, please alert me on how to do it the right way There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Makeandtoss Below are some of his actions, and I trust Wikipedia scrutinize:

1. He has deleted a huge chunk of the original article multiple times despite it had several reliable sources, this could be easily found if you go further through the edit history of the page. Of course the parts he edited several times without any proper reason or cause were pro-Zahran.
2. He has entered negative information against Zahran using non-reliable sources, such as Ammonnews which is a known pro-Jordan's regime's site, and on top, the Arabtimes.com, the most read in US, has described that site as run by a Jordanian intelligence collonel, he also used three unknown, least read, Jordanian sites to support his edit, a huge violation of Wikiepdia's rules.
3. When one of the editors/users tried to even state that Ammonnews was unreliable, Makeandtoss deleted the entire comment and kept what he wanted, the version he likes that is.
4. In one part in the edit history, Makeandtoss describes reliable Israeli media as Zionist/Israeli propaganda. This exhbits bias.
5. If you read the edit history well, you will see he has used unreliable and unknown Jordanian sites to describe Mudar Zahran as an Israeli mossad agent, something that could have ended up causing physical harm to Zahran, and above all, is pure trashing of the biography of a living person and is against the guidelines of wikipedia rules.
6. I call on all of you to view the entire edit history, Makeandtoss does break the rules. Thanks

---JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 July 2016

• Mudar Zahran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JordanianExpert (talk · contribs)

I moved the above to here, and removed an icon, because it was inadvertently posted at the top of ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mudar Zahran!

Let me stop here at : "Arabtimes.com, the most read in US"!!!! Arab Times (US) once claimed that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer. Here's the article, anyone interested can enjoy the style of the website and the amusing content. So if JordanianExpert considers "Arab Times" "reliable", then I am sorry to inform you that this is frankly hilarious. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, salam, Yazan, Yamin, Shalom, Ammonnews ran a story months ago claiming the Independent is demanding " a king like that of Jordan to rule the UK" and the Independent's editor, Mr. Gore had to dismiss the claims and state it was a lie. Why are you using Ammonnews to enter stories on Mudar Zahran 's article page? Thanks--- JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ammon news retracted the article and apologized, while Arab Times was too busy posting a follow up article on how King Abdullah seduced his sister!!!! [86], I stopped laughing, this is getting ridiculous and you are no longer credible (PS: you never were). Makeandtoss (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are establishing yourself as a propagandist, at best, an unreliable and biased editor, no such story on Arab times and Ammonnews NEVER apologizes, provide any evidence to both claims you make here, and even if they have apologized, which they never did, shows they are unreliable and you are using them as a source to literally vandalize an article about a key Jordanian political figure, which is fine if it was on your own facebook page, but not wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would just point out that JordanianExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest in a series of throw-away accounts that have edited this biography on behalf of its subject, who has edited it himself as 82.3.238.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (He was back today as well, editing in concert with JordanianExpert.) (Lest anybody think I'm violating WP:OUTING, please read this edit summary in which he declares his identity—"I AM MUDAR ZAHRAN."—and others in which he identifies himself as Zahran and says Wikipedia could get him killed.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict){replyto|JordanianExpert}, Your best option is to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to present your case, but please least the comments about other editors behind. It's not helpful in any place and you really need to stop. You also need to use the article talk page to present your view and get consensus about what should be in the article. Also, if you are the subject of the article, please read WP:COI as you clearly would have a conflict of interest and should really only be using the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did provide links to the articles I mentioned; [87], article. "Key Jordanian political figure" Oh my god, I have never seen such self-praise in my life. You are directly undermining my intelligence and the intelligence of every single person reading this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I'm not endorsing JordanianExpert's behaviour in any way, but: Makeandtoss was topic banned by Drmies from editing Mudar Zahran in January for six months. This ban was lifted early only seven hours ago after Makeandtoss made a plea first to myself in the IRC help channel, and then to Drmies on his talk page. His plea to be unbanned, at least to me initially, was to correct a minor error, but it appears he's possibly returned straight back to the heart of the controversy. It's a little foolish, to say the least, after waiting over five months to edit there again and having two appeals at AN rejected in that time (1st 2nd) until Drmies finally assumed good faith. I pass no further comment on the dispute or JordanianExpert's role. Also pinging @Drmies:. KaisaL (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@KaisaL: What? I barely touched the article, I only reverted once edits by unauthorized users. Don't confuse things as the topic ban was for sockpuppetry accusatioms. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is relevant nonetheless that the ban was only lifted seven hours ago, and that information needed to be added to this report (with relevant links). I have not passed further comment on the dispute. KaisaL (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

KisaL thanks for the balanced comments, please view the history or edit history, Makeandtoss has been vandalizing the page against all Wikipedia rules... including constantly deleting entire parts despite having reliable sources. I believe he should be banned from editing that page, also, why spending all that energy on one page from one editor? What is the motive? All I am saying, apply the rules to him. JordanianExpert (Edited by: Mr rnddude (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC))

• I have taken a look at this article and unless I am wildly missing something, this AN/I report doesn't seem to be about edits made to the article by Makeandtoss at Mudar Zahran today, but seems to stem from disputes dating back to January and before. Makeandtoss reported JordanianExpert at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JordanianExpert reported by User:Makeandtoss .28Result: .29 shortly before this report here, so it seems to be a little bit tit-for-tat to me. I am not willing to support reinstating Makeandtoss' topic ban or to take any additional action against him as I see no current evidence of the mass deletions and vandalism being spoken of. This seems like a content issue between bickering editors dating back quite some time and it is very convenient that it has flared back up today just as one party is allowed to return to the topic area. Also note that CambridgeBayWeather has already salted the page to prevent disruptive editing by new accounts. KaisaL (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Exhausted

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

---

I'm getting to be exhausted by the repetitive hostile intervention of the user Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant into my nice pleasant Wikipedia editing experience. A sampling of the most recent hijinx follows. I have instituted my own personal interaction ban, but right after that, I get called a liar in the edit comments. I really want nothing to do with this editor-- ever. Could an admin set down an interaction ban? Examples from today:

• I get called a liar for a good edit. This is really disheartening as I actually did make a 40 minute detour today to the Blackader Lauterman Library of Architecture and Art to check references for the article in question, and to find more! To be called a liar after all that is just plain mean, lacking in WP:AGF and really lousy.
• S/he removes three good references that I have seen the content of in Google Book search, saying they are "not verified by any editor". I'm an editor. I verified them.
• His/her intervention into AfD's I have voted on first or instigated is always (yes 100% of the time) to take the opposite position to mine, irregardless of the facts. Example.

There are dozens more examples form the edit history, which I cannot be bothered to dredge up. Interaction ban? Please?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's an unusual interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability that a source cannot be accepted unless another editor has verified the content of the source. I think an interaction ban is premature, but I'd like to hear from Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk · contribs). Normally we trust when an editor adds a source that they haven't misrepresented the contents, and I'm not sure how a second editor can review a source if it's removed from the article. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • thanks. The root of this is not the source argument, it's arguing over anything. (re the verifying of sources, I'm the editor who found/verified them in Google books and then added them to the article.) I am very actively trying to stay away from this editor but they persist. Some kind of warning, block or ban is necessary-- ideally an interaction ban. If an interaction ban is indeed available, I would very stongly request that one be put in place to save on future grief. I can dig up old disputes if necessary.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• comment This a bogus and dishonest report. I never called this editor a liar. Diff please? The editor has told three different versions of the same story.

Version one is here. [88] [89] See the statement by HappyValleyEditor here: "Artist is the author of numerous permanent public sculptures in Montreal and elsewhere. One is an prominent work at the Museum of Point-a-Callieres in old Montreal. The public works alone satisfy WP:ARTIST. On thop of this, there are plenty of references in print (coverage is largely pre-Internet) which I will provide after a trip to the library! I've added about a half dozen references and will add more over the course of nomination." He states there that he "will provide after a trip to the library. The url he posted as a reference did not have the info on its website, so there was no way to verify the reference. There were three references in all that did not support the statement in the article. I correctly removed those three refs because they were not verified.

Version two is here: He writes "I have verified them" [90]

Version three is here: [91] He states here "at 00:34, 5 July 2016 (restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal!). "

So which of the three versions is the honest one? Now after he worked on adding references to the article he states he "Verified online the first time it was added"

No, the three statement by him do not coincide. As for the rest of this report it was filed in retaliation because I let him know on my talk page earlier that: " I am preparing a formal report about your repeated harassment of me. Stay away and leave me alone." see here: [92]

to Mackensen The three sources he added were google book sites that did not have any text on there pages, just a button to buy the print book. There was no verifiable content to verify on the pages. The references that he placed were not verifiable by him or any other editor at the time he placed them in the article. He said he needed to go to the library, so he knew he had to get a look at the print version so he could verify the statements he placed in the article. It is rather disingenuous of him to state this evening "00:34, 5 July 2016 (restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal!). " at this diff [93] What happened to the needed library trip? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: for some reason, Google Books sometimes shows you a snipped of text in thesearch result that is informative, and then a portion of the page. With these two things you can judge the ref. However, as this argument is bringing up, The URL for the book result does not provide this infromation. I'm not sure why it was lost. In any case I verified them the dfirst time aroudn in Google books, and actually found one few of them in hard copy in the library! Also, I should not be suject to this level of personal harassment from an editor, as above. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you're asking which of the edits made by an editor is honest, then you're accusing him of a dishonest edit. We usually call that lying; please don't play semantics. It's tiresome and wastes words. Offline sources aren't a problem; given a proper citation anyone can check the offline source for themselves. That's normal but apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) you have a problem with it. Also, I still don't understand how editors will know to "verify" a source if you remove it from the article. It's one thing to challenge a fact or an assertion; quite another to simply remove sources. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors are asking in this thread for an IBAN. Perhaps it would be for the best to grant such a thing without further delay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant:, you said I said edit summaries are supposed to be honest in this diff. That's implying HappyValleyEditor was not being honest in their edit summary, i.e. that they were lying. Arguing that all 3 of the edit summaries must "coincide" is wikilawyering. This is a failure to assume good faith. If you don't understand what HVE meant when they said restore ref. Verified online the first time it was added, and later in person with the actual Journal! and parse that they had indeed gone to the library and visually verified the source, then there is a major lack of competence. Blackmane (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Blackmane but you have the sequence out of order. In the third version of his story he said he had actually verified the reference when he first put it in the article, but at the AFD he said he needed to go to the library. He changed his story in the third version and said he verified it the first time when he added the references. Both cannot be true. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? "However, as this argument is bringing up, The URL for the book result does not provide this infromation. I'm not sure why it was lost." It was not mysteriously lost! Come on! The diffs are right there above. Diffs do not lie! Lost? Rubbish! Just admit you were not being honest about these three versions of the story, and then maybe I will not ask for a WP:BOOMERANG against you. for making this stuff up and trying to get me in trouble. You are causing disruption and your stories do not work. Please be honest. I did not pursue my harassment complaint against you with admin Coffee when you were harassing me before, and emailing me when I asked you to stop over and over. The lengths will go to to try to cause trouble for me are horrible. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon "Both editors are asking in this thread for an IBAN." This is not true. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What, then, is your "Stay away and leave me alone" plea, if not for an IBAN? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

[(Link removed--Drmies) Here are the images I took of the reference in question]. They were taken today with my Iphone in the library, this afternoon. Apparently you cannot use a photocopier anymore with coins! Let me know if these show up, as it is my first time using IMGUR. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant needs to take a step back. Strange things happen with Google Books and the ability to see snippets, previews, or nothing at all. We assume good faith with offline sourcing unless there's evidence to the contrary. If there's a disputed fact then that's a matter for the article's talk page, or possibly the AfD. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but with the comment above "Rubbish! Just admit you were not being honest about these three versions of the story", I think the repeated accusations of lying need to be addressed. As I have shown with the pictures, I ain't lying about anything. What more does an editor have to do? I verified the source online, an in person. And I took pictures. I went way above and beyond what policy calls for. To be called a liar over and over is really unreasonable. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My reading of the situation is different. From "version 1" and "version 2", HVE had verified them on Google books. In "Version 3" HVE states that they had gone to the library to verify them personally. I don't see how this was that hard to parse. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, precisely.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading the three version of happy's stories I can see what Fayette is saying. To be blunt I believe happy is lying about all this. He is now trapped in the lies and trying to justify what he did. The biggest issue is not his mistake about using the references before he made it to the library, but him trying to cover up now with iPhone and copiers? As for eFouette giving the three versions of the stories with diffs I might add, I call that defending herself. We need to concentrate on the three versions of the stories happy told with diffs provided as proof that he was being dishonest. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know where poeple come up with "To be blunt I believe happy is lying about all this". What ahppened to WP:AGF? I have photographs of the article. You go and find that journal. It's not easy to find. I spent my day improving an article and saving it from deletion, not launching personal attacks. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone involved in this needs to step back and not make any comments here for a while. There's no new information and you're just winding each other up. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• fwiw, I'm not finding it hard to get Google to yield the snippet views of the three disputed references, at least two of which appear to me to support the use made of them by HVW: [94] [95] [96]. And I repeat: both editors have asked for an IBAN, HVE explicitly, and FRDJET implicitly ("Stay away and leave me alone"). Perhaps we might now cut the he said/she said drama and grant them their wish? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again Tagishsimon. I said earlier in this thread that is not true. I am taking Mackensen's advice, but I will have to point out any further untrue statements. Please do not misrepresent what I said. You do not speak for me, ever. Good day all! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Interaction bans do not have a happy history here. Rather than reduce the drama, Ibans have a tendency to increase drama. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I find HappyValleyEditor's explanation of what happened with the Google books and his trip to the library to be credible, and Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant's and Maybeparaphrased's accusations to be unsupported, or at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided. Per Blackmane I don't believe a formal "interaction ban" is necessary, but I do hope these editors will try to avoid each other, and I will look very much askance at any evidence of "wikihounding" or following around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks for this. However this is about episode three or four of the same thing-- I'll no doubt be back to report episode 5 in a month or so. I am saddened that editors are allowed to go around agressively and falsely calling an editor making good edits a liar, and that there are no consequences to doing so. It that's the environment that is acceptable, then it's clear that there is a problem with the environment.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor, as Newyorkbrad is an admin, and a highly respected one, I believe the take home message here is that Fouette and Maybeparaphrased have been warned that any continuation of this behaviour will attract more than just warnings. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the take home message from NewYorkBrad, as you say Blackmane is a well respected admin here, is that he has outlined that he believes "Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant's and Maybeparaphrased's accusations to be unsupported, or at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided." Pay attention to the last part. He is trying to diffuse the situation by adding "at best no longer appropriate now that a full explanation has been provided." Also he said, "I do hope these editors will try to avoid each other" which I take as meaning he has suggested that HappyValleyEditor and myself are being advised to voluntarily steer clear of each other. The "warning statement" as I read his words speaks of future consequences if he finds future claims of problems. "I will look very much askance at any evidence of "wikihounding" or following around." I believe that maybeparaphrased just gave his opinion on the matter. We are all allowed to discuss and give our opinions here. I do not believe maybe was being warned about anything. I could be off base on that one point, but I do not think so. I thank NewYorkBrad for taking the time for fairly assessing and diffusing the situation. I intend to take NewYorkBrad's advice. Good day to all! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant: Let me step in and clarify then; sometimes Newyorkbrad is too diplomatic for his own good. You're allowed to give your opinions. You're not allowed to go around making wild accusations that someone is a "liar" because of some nebulous and unfounded sourcing dispute. No one on this board has accepted your claims that HappyValleyEditor was "lying." Rather, everyone has accepted his explanation that he saw a snippet online (Tagishsimon was able to verify this); that he later found a physical book with the same information should remove all doubt. Instead of accepting his edit in good faith, you removed valid sources from an article with an inflammatory edit summary (which an otherwise uninvolved editor at the AfD also criticized). Your behavior was unnecessarily disruptive, taking what should have been a normal, mundane deletion discussion and turning it into a conduct dispute. So we're all clear, you've been warned. Your behavior was disruptive and unacceptable, and I gather there's additional history between you and HappyValleyEditor which has not come to light here. Further interaction between you two will likely lead to your being blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite true to say that everyone has accepted HVE's verification of the reference. One editor, Maybeparaphrased has also accused HVE of lying, using the reference before verifying it (only the second editor that I am aware of to interpret verifiability this way) and that that the 'three versions of the stories' (practically identical words to FRDJET's above) are proof of dishonesty. Is it just me, or am I the only one who can smell a pair of socks here? I smelt them while I was reading Maybeparaphrased's post the first time through. Maybeparaphrased has even awarded FRDJET a totally undeserved barnstar. --Elektrik Fanne 14:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well; it doesn't seem as if Maybeparaphrased has ever disagreed with Foutté on much... _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just had a closer look at the editing history of FRDJET, MBP and HVE. There appears to be a strong duck connection between FRDJET and MBP. In particular a couple of articles for deletion [97] and [98] where they support each other. The later particularly where every other editor declared that all the sources used in the subject article were either unreliable or did not address the issue. FRDJET first claimed that some sources directly addressed the article content (denied by all subsequent posters except MBP who started his post with, '"I agree with the argument of Fouette above ..."') and tried to claim the references were good (subsequently declared to be not the case).

Also, MBP's talk page is telling where MBP treats HVE to a round of uncivil response to valid and good faith posts. MBP claims to have told HVE to stay off his talk page, but I can find no evidence of this (indeed there is minimal interaction prior to the spat). Forgive my lack of experience in these matters, but can a Checkuser be initiated from an ANI, or does an SPI have to be raised? --Elektrik Fanne 14:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, ping, for example Bbb23 and get a second opinion first... maybe. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not running a CU based on this thread. If an editor thinks there's enough evidence to initiate an SPI, they are free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have a bit less faith than Newyorkbrad, in part because I don't understand what that reference linked to by HVE is supposed to prove--as far as I can tell, it is not one of the references currently cited in the article, not one of the references removed by the other editor. In part this is caused by the poor bibliographical practice one sees in the article; there should be something there saying Chandler, Jean Noel (1976). "111 Dessins du Quebec". Arts Canada. 204/205: 40–48.. What's more, I believe there is a kind of practical rule that we don't use Google snippets views. The editor says they went to the library, and I suppose we have to believe that, but Googling, then linking, then going to the library, then ... I find it hard to believe, I'm afraid, since those three are not what they linked here. (And I'm going to remove that link since it's a violation of our copyright policy). Now, the edit summaries by the other editor are ... well, wrong. If they dispute the content, they can say that, but this "not verified by any editor" stuff is asinine. These are just observations; they are not a solution. NYB's comments are the best guidelines toward a solution. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, also somewhat ridiculous: this socking accusation. Thanks Bbb23; I agree 100% with your refusal to run CU based on a barnstar. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Err based on an interaction report which I linked to above, I think. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't based on the barnstar. The opinon was formed as I read the post. The barnstar was uncovered long after I had formed my opinion. Could @Bbb23: clarify, if he won't run a CU because it is here at ANI or because he believes it lacks evidence. I'm sure no one wants to waste their time on an SPI that has little chance of flying. --Elektrik Fanne 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I usually run a CU based on an ANI topic only if it's reasonably obvious to me. Otherwise, I prefer an SPI that I - and perhaps even before me a clerk - can evaluate with the evidence laid out properly. Drmies is often a quicker study than I am, but I have not formed an opinion as to the quality and quantity of the evidence scattered in this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall ponder this and have a closer look at the evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Before the conspiracy theories get too thick here I told happy to stay off my talk page here. [99] There are only four posts in the exchange there. In the second post I told him to stay off my talk page. The seemingly helpful message he posts there was really snarky and "Eddie Haskell polite" because he was trying to talk down to me because I had been the editor that AFDed the article he made. I can read through the lines as well as most people, so I told him to stay off my talk page. I am surprised that anyone could miss that in a four post exchange, but assuming good faith someone may have innocently missed that line. I do not have time for sour grapes foolishness and that is why I told him to stay off my talk page. Of course he did not comply and harassed me with another condescending message. Editors agree with each other all the time on Afds. If anyone is questioning my integrity here checkuser away! I guess it is the price I pay for agreeing and supporting an editor at anI. I read over the material and gave my opinion on it. SPI? This is all wacky. Go right ahead and be my guest. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Missed the bit above. The advice appears to have been given in good faith, so your reaction does not make a whole lot of sense - unless you are also FRDJET that is. --Elektrik Fanne 15:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any sockpuppeting going on here. Editor(s) have been warned about their conduct, which satisfies me. Thank you. FWIW, I did go to the library. I'm not sure how anyone could come up with an old bound copy of ArtsCanada without doing so. In any case, I think this thread could be closed.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Although this is closed, I felt I should close the socking suggestions above. Although when I first read MBP's first post above, I got the alarm bell of a sock at work (and I still get it every time I re-read it). MBP's comment above about two eidtors agreeing is valid, but I find it disturbing that one is agreeing on a position taken by the other that is basically untenable. Notably, the odd concept that a reference cannot be used until it has been verified by another user. I have not seen anyone make that claim before, and suddenly two users are making it. However, reviewing the interactions between FRDJET and MBT, I find that there is evidence that may be at best circumstantial and at worst suspicious. But circumstances and suspicion do not constitute proof. I have no experience of SPI cases (either way!) but, on balance, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to go to the trouble of raising an SPI case. --Elektrik Fanne 16:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised how many people hold, and agree on, untenable positions. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Ridiculous behavior, threats, and OWNership by IP editor

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

---

• 2600:8801:184:E600:8A63:DFFF:FE96:6313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two IP editors (same person) has been edit warring on Kung Fu Panda articles regarding the airdates (I've submitted an RPP for that too). This ANI is about their behavior though. Aside from the still open AN3, they've taken to threatening another IP editor with blocks and serious consequences.

• "Now, you are in SERIOUS TROUBLE for putting in wrong dates for 2 eps and German dates for 7. Do not do this ever again." ([100])
• "Do not EVER list the German airdate as the real end date. It must be American dates on this article. Do not remove the American dates EVER AGAIN." ([101])
• "...please keep them, not remove them and replace them with international dates. If you continue to put in German airdates, you are in EXTREMELY SERIOUS TROUBLE, and I will revert them. So please do not do it" ([102])
• "If you put German airdates in this list ever again, you are in serious trouble. Please keep American airdates." ([103])
• "Update: now, it will result in either the IP users editing will be blocked, or those pages will be semi protected" ([104])

There's more, but you get the idea. See the discussion at the AN3 filing initiated by this same editor too. The IP that the filing was made about thinks this might be a sockpuppet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Coat of arms: Edit-warring, introduction of edit-protection and refusal to participate in discussion

User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. Wikipedia policy surely can't allow for this: the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: Who is to say which is correct? Have you asked Gryffindor (talk · contribs) directly? In fact, have you even notified them about this ANI as you are required to do? See also your thread at VPM. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Gryffindor acted in an administrative capacity in a dispute in which they are a party. The problem for *you* is that the question first asked is going to be 'Would any other non-involved admin have done the same?'. Given you were edit-warring against the consensus on the talkpage (your last insertion of the material was on the 4th, by which time it was clear on the template talkpage consensus was against you), a request at RFPP or the Editwarring noticeboards would have been highly likely to have ended with the same result and possibly a block for you. With the caveat that when a page is protected at RFPP it will often be the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Which is a reason why admins should not protect pages they are involved in a content dispute on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like you made a whole lot of changes between March 9 and June 10 [105], you got reverted by Sandstein, you replaced some of your changes, and then an edit war ensued between you versus Sandstein and Gryffindor. They could have have blocked you instead (you made at least 9 reverts in 15 days, and you were warned on your talk page [106]) to stop your edit-warring, but I don't think you want a block on your log, do you? So I think he/they did the right thing. It's never a good idea to edit-war with an admin, much less two of them, and they were protecting the integrity of the template as it has existed for years. The RfC consensus even now looks pretty clear, and both Sandstein and Gryffindor have participated in it and in the previous discussion from the very beginning. And no one has to answer your repeated questions or demands in the RfC -- they just need to state their opinion once. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hm, although I agree with Gryffindor on the content issue (whether to use the oddly-named and potentially deficient images created by Ssolbergj in coats of arms across Wikipedia), they should not have applied protection to their preferred version of the template because they are involved in the content dispute. But if I were not myself involved, I would be considering a temporary block of Ssolbergj about now. Their insistence on enforcing the use of their own images through edit-warring, even though nobody agrees with them in the RfC I started about this, indicates a lack of ability to contribute to Wikipedia, as a collaborative project, in a productive manner. So do conduct issues such as repeatedly changing talk page comments made by me in the RfC ([107], [108], [109], [110]) despite warnings to the contrary.  Sandstein  13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The RFC you set up had attracted no relevant relevant comments IMO. A few excerpts, or rather the essence, of the respons to the rfc: "I realize this doesn't address the images themselves", your lovely comment "I do not trust the competence of Ssolbergj", and A.H king's rather pointless "support" comment "Every country has smaller/lesser version of their COA, and Wikimedia has files for the escutcheons of COAs only". These were not really about the subject in question. Therefore I think you are completely wrong to pretend that wikipedia is a democracy and refer to these rather off-topic comments as some sort of vote. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't like Gryffindor's use of protection in this instance. Sandstein's probably right that another administrator would have done it, but there's a mechanism to request that sort of thing and it wasn't done. Ssolbergj, nobody in that RfC agrees with your position and you shouldn't be edit-warring in support of it. I'd like to clarify one point here raised by Softlavender: edit-warring is improper regardless of who you're doing it with. Sandstein and Gryffindor were (yes?) acting as editors in this case, save for Gryffindor's improper use of page protection. Administrative status doesn't matter in a content dispute and we shouldn't privilege it. Had either issued a block while involved in a content dispute that would be a significant impropriety. Apologies Softlavender if I'm misconstruing your position. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"nobody in that RfC agrees with your position" Please read what I said above. I was supporting the status quo in the discussion. Sandstein and Griffyndor have abandoned the discussion, without being engaged at any point in trying to build consensus, and simply persist in edit-warring without giving any arguments. The subject is heraldry, so the discussion ought to be on that subject. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssolberg, your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo. And nobody is required to opine more than once in an RfC (or indeed in any discussion). Casting one !vote and then remaining silent is not "abandoning" the discussion. On the other hand your repeated demands and remonstrations in that RfC are very beligerent and battlegroundy. WP:CONSENSUS is based on the majority view, and your view is the minority, so the consensus is clear. Softlavender (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I didn't mean to imply edit-warring is OK when dealing with non-admins; what I meant was it's stupid to edit war with an admin, not to mention with two admins. (That's why I said "not a good idea" rather than "not OK".) I was trying to be polite. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment "your massive changes between March 9 and June 10 are what interrupted the status quo" I probably created 98 % of this template, so it's not right to say that there was any more consensus before my last few edits than after them. WP:notdemocracy explains that the quality of discussion trumps "voting". "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting".- Ssolbergj (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Ssolbergj, in my opinion it's always best if you are planning to make a massive change to an existing set-up if you mention, discuss, and describe it beforehand on the relevant talk page first. That way people can let you know before you spend a lot of time and energy on it whether it is a good and acceptable idea/change. Springing a massive unannounced change on people is not fair and creates a lot of work, headache, investigation, and cleanup. Moreover, if you don't inquire beforehand, your massive changes, and the time you spent creating them, is likely to go for naught and need to be undone. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and therefore although we are encouraged to be BOLD, bold doesn't mean making massive sweeping changes without notice. As it stands, both your artwork and your filenames may not end up being used. If you had run things by other editors first, you may have gotten feedback that could have saved you trouble. You may have discussed things on Commons (I'm not sure), but if so you also need to discuss on English Wikipedia if you are going to place tons of new images or non-English filenames into English wiki. Plus you always need to use an edit summary to describe what you are doing in each edit, even if you are the only one who has been editing the page recently. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. I have half a mind of simply blocking per boomerang for disruption and wasting everyone's time. Ssolbergj keeps arguing that the situation they established is the status quo, which is nonsense, esp. since they never explained what they were doing in June, neither in edit summaries nor on the talk page. I don't care how many times Ssolbergj says "there is the discussion, contribute there" while pointing at Commons; we're here, we're not there. The RfC is clearly not going their way, and I think we have a serious case of a refusal to listen.

  Now, what Gryffindor did is clearly not OK either, first because INVOLVED (duh), which damages their credibility too, and second because this is not so serious an edit war that full protection is warranted (I just lifted it). Gryffindor. Please comment here and make it better.

  Now, given that there's an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin versions (still don't have a clue why these changes were made--maybe Ssolbergj is a member of Schola?), and given that their actions are broadly deemed to be disruptive and we're here again wasting our time, I propose that any further revert by Ssolbergj or any edit that Latinizes these file names in the template without iron-clad talk page agreement be reverted and followed by a block. (Not a block by Gryffindor, obviously.) Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"an RfC, heavily leaning toward the non-Latin version" Well there are two "support votes" that are completely off-topic, and the one who set up the rfc clearly has no interest in discussing. Again, WP:notdemocracy. Therefore I think the edit protecion instead should be applied to this version, until some effort is made to actually build consensus for replacing a big bulk of images. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well its slightly further back than June. The changes go back to March and Ssolberj has been editing the template for a lot longer than that. As for the underlying issue - from what I gather (and it is difficult to tell) Ssolberj has been making Heraldry-compliant coats (from what I can tell, for use in smaller sizes) from the Blazon to replace the already existing full coat-of-arms. See Coat of arms of the Czech Republicvs Ssolberj's Blazon derived latin-named version. It looks like current usage (which is what Sandstein and Gryffindor prefer) is to use scaled down versions of the more detailed full coats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth the figure at Coat of arms of the Czech Republic is a correct interpretation of the blazon "Quarterly: first and fourth gules, a lion rampant double-queued argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Bohemia); second azure, an eagle displayed chequy gules and argent armed, langued and crowned Or (Moravia); third Or, an eagle displayed sable armed and langued gules crowned of the field and charged on the breast with a crescent terminating in trefoils at each end with issuing from the centrepoint a cross patée argent (Silesia)." The English blazon on the commons page omits details of the crescent, but these are included in the French version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with the template description: the lesser version of the Czech arms (only one lion) has been used. If the objective of Sandstein and Gryffindor is to alter the premise of the article, then they should have proposed that. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

A brief video summary about Michael Jackson.

A simple video explanation of German reunification.

I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are correct about your concerns. However, other than a no-bad-feelings username block or rename on Commons, there is not admin action that currently needs to be taken. Village Pump is a better place to discuss this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Village pump for OR? Will post at the OR noticeboard. -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This feels a lot like spamming. I suggest we advise the editor to consider posting on the talk page of each page instead and seeing if others would be interested in including the video. I could possibly imagine a way that a particular video could be useful but frankly this feels no different to me than someone wanting to including their own personal youtube videos that supposedly explain subjects. The key is there is no evidence that this foundation is a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining the organizational structure of Simpleshow Foundation (i.e. "foundation" usually connotes non-profit). What I do see is that the same people are involved in an apparently for-profit enterprise called Simpleshow which you can pay to make similar videos. That makes these videos seems like advertising to me. That said, given they're licensed with cc-by-sa, we could just edit out the credits at the end of the video, but that still leaves open the question of whether the style and content is appropriate for Wikipedia. I would say that yes, it is appropriate for Commons (not that we're deciding that here), but they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. A video should supplement, not stand in for, the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI I think I removed all the rest (at least temporarily). In doing so I noticed that Sandstein removed one from food waste back in May with an edit summary that nicely summarizes one of the reasons we don't want a video standing in for the article (vs. supplementing it): "This video is encyclopedia content unable to be edited for NPOV, V, etc; it is unsourced. Also contains watermarks, whereas our content is not inline-attributed." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they were part of a workshop at Wikimania 2015. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's ping the participants from that workshop who are active on enwiki: @Bluerasberry, Fuzheado, Spinster, and Satdeep Gill:. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI Moxy started this thread Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Simpleshow foundation so those of you who commented here may want to post there as well. I know that things can get lost/misinterpreted etc when more than one conversation is going on about the same thing. I would hate to see that happen with something this important. MarnetteD|Talk 01:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO there are WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTIONal aspects of these videos that make them problematic at best. even as an EL they may have problems with no. 8 of WP:ELNO. MarnetteD|Talk 01:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this being discussed! Their video at Sleep hygiene was removed "temporarily" today. I've been pondering what to do about it. It starts well (internal biological clock, the hormone melatonin), but the claim that "Simon" has trained his "body" to know that "it's only time for melatonin when Simon is in bed" is nonsense. The pineal gland starts secreting melatonin at least a couple of hours before bedtime. The video is IMO childish; it is, as they claim, simple. It contains at least this one gross error. It does not belong on Wikipedia. --Hordaland (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said to Norma.jean, the uploader, on my talk page, my chief concern is that this is a way to get around the collaborative editing environment. The creator of a video inserted into any article has sole control of that video's content, and no one is able to refute it or edit it. And for goodness sakes, do we really need a video explaining Mother's Day? Or how to write a cover letter? If the WMF partners with this group or makes an official arrangement, it's out of our control. Until and unless that happens, this is spamalicious to me and I don't care if it's from a non-profit or a for-profit. Katie^talk 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The credits at the end mean that these are promotional videos. The content lock is highly problematic as mentioned. I can't see how it would be appropriate to use any of these videos on any article... maybe on a Simpleshow article would be ok, but others: no. Every time one of these videos plays there is a commercial message, in the form of a brand indication, at the end. Non profit or not, these do not belong here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems like most of the comments come back to a fundamental aspect of what is or is not appropriate use of video in an article: a video should supplement an article through illustration, example, etc.; it shouldn't explain the subject in the sense of standing in for article content. We have access to countless recorded university lectures on various topics, but they don't exist in every article on an academic subject because the instructor would be doing the job of the article (i.e. if the lecture is so good, let's use it as a source). Regarding If the WMF partners with this group or makes an official arrangement, it's out of our control -- I'm not so worried about this. Production would be out of our control, but I can't imagine a scenario in which WMF requires content in articles for reasons which are neither technical nor legal (oh the wikiriots we'd see). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attention to my recent edits. There were many questions and claims and I'll try to address them in this post. First of all, re simpleshow foundation: this is a non-profit organization that produces explainer videos to all kind of topics. The foundation doesn't do any commercial projects and there is no purchaser (neither WMF or whatever =). Instead, it has a community of volunteer authors and experts including some wikipedia editors that "donate" their knowledge, while simpleshow foundation supports them to put their know how into short explainer videos that are published under a free license (CC) and can be used as Open Educational Resources. Due to legal organization there are two accounts on Wiki: one for simpleshow foundation - that is being used exclusively for uploading the videos on wikicommons, and my personal account Norma.jean that I use for edits. My former colleague had a discussion about this a year ago. Indeed we've run several workshops with Wikipedians, including last and this year's Wikimania and talked to many editors about the initiative. In most cases the reaction was very positive that's why I decided to insert some of our videos into articles. So, it wasn't meant to be like spam and I'm really sorry that it came across like that. The most important question is whether such videos enrich the articles or not. Sometimes it depends on the topic and it's definitely a matter of discussion. However, I won't agree with you if you're against such videos on Wikipedia in general. Think of e.g. illiterate people or if someone doesn't want to read the whole article, but just get a short overview. Basically it's a kind of video summary of the article that explains the basics with the visual support. Apart from that there are some topics that could be better explained in such way. And there are different learning styles: some people prefer to read, some are more visual / audio-visual types. What do you think of the explainer videos on these articles: HIV/AIDS or Zika virus? My opinion is that they help the articles and make them more understandable for general public. Re the Katie's concern about the collaborative editing: actually this is possible to edit the video, especially this type of animated videos. There are some free available online tools that enables everyone create and adapt such videos. You're right there is no environment in the moment, but we're trying to create this with our foundation. If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you for your support --Norma.jean (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Norma.jean: Thanks for this detailed response. Some follow-ups for you.

• "The foundation doesn't do any commercial projects" - Are you saying Simpleshow does not do commercial projects? Or that it's an unrelated entity?
• "Think of e.g. illiterate people [...] And there are different learning styles" This is a very interesting line of thinking. We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, but there's certainly a conversation that could be had about other ways to present information to people who do not or cannot learn as well from a standard encyclopedia article. Introducing this in a video format would require such a discussion first, though.
• "if someone doesn't want to read the whole article, but just get a short overview" This is what the lead is for, though -- a lead which is created collaboratively and based on citations of reliable sources.

So far this thread has been largely negative. Let me be clear about something: a non-profit making explainer videos that it shares for free with an open license is a very good thing, and has a mission that would clearly appeal to your average Wikipedia editor. So let me throw out a couple ideas for ways I think this style of video might be helpful.

1. What if the videos were an illustrated extension of the spoken Wikipedia, working with the community on the talk page of a particular article (probably a Featured Article) to develop the lead to the point that it could provide the basis for a video. How to come up with/develop visuals would require some conversation, too (perhaps a storyboard posted to the talk page for discussion), but at least sticking with what's written in the article avoids most of the original research, reliable sourcing issues, etc.
2. What about focusing on an aspect of a subject rather than the whole subject? One thing we could use more of, I think, is effective illustration of technical/scientific concepts. Of course, the style of such an animation is typically radically different, so it might not make sense.
3. I don't have much experience with Simple Wikipedia, but it may very well be that they are more welcoming of subject explainer videos like this. (I do see that you mentioned you've done some work there).
4. It would be less controversial to include it as an external link (or further reading?), perhaps even with a dedicated template to add to relevant articles without actually embedding the video. I say "less controversial" but it would still be best to have an RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed attended a workshop given by the Simpleshow Foundation at Wikimania 2015. I very much enjoyed it and learned a lot from it, in terms of how you can create accessible videos and do effective online storytelling in general. I can confirm this is a non-profit foundation with goals that are aligned with ours and I see a lot of potential of them collaborating with us. However, the argument that the videos need better factual checks and sourcing to be suitable for an encyclopedia are very valid IMO. I am quite certain that the people from the Simpleshow Foundation are very interested in working on this together with editors. Please assume good faith and let's approach this in a productive way. How about creating a project page with a wishlist for videos that we do need, where volunteers can work together to establish good and correctly sourced scripts/scenarios that can then be turned into Simpleshow videos that are considered suitable for Wikipedia? Spinster (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the response by N.j I feel that WP:NOTADVICE and WP:NOTWEBHOST should be mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to note here that there are two companies involved: Simpleshow the for profit corporation, and Simpleshow the non-profit foundation. The companies are essentially indistinguishable to anyone watching the videos. If we support using the foundation's product, we are supporting the corporation. If you have any doubt that this is a profit venture, then call up the Simpleshow people:

We offer transparent fixed prices per clip for a simpleshow classic. So there are no hidden costs. We’ll be pleased to send you our current price list after an initial telephone consultation. Write to us via our contact form, we’re happy to call you back. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

IP needs to stop

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

---

Can someone get the attention of this IP 79.30.91.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or protect the page. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked after multiple attempts to get their attention failed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

World of Spectrum

World of Spectrum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Edit warring by three wp:SPAs who have received EW notices.

• 1024MAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrMajors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fogartylee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Who claims to be the current owner of World of Spectrum - talk:Jim1138

Interestingly, page view statistics go from < 30 views per day to 500 VPD July 3&4th.
At a minimum, the page probably needs to be fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sent it to AFD - most of the article is sourced to itself, and that which isn't has little in-depth 3rd party coverage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Spectrum. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing an RfC - special case

The RfC I started has garnered a huge amount of participation after Breitbart published a couple of pieces on the article. It has already been determined on the talk page that someone should close it, and I have listed it as WP:ANRFC; but it is very far down the list. Since this is a special case, I am asking for someone to close it here; the more it is delayed, the larger the potential for drama. The consensus is rather clear, imo. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That RFC is quite a mess. Cookies to anyone brave enough to tackle it. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As the person who called for a close, I would like to point out that multiple editors[111][112][113][114][115] are of the opinion that the article section must be frozen in its current state until there is an official close. The actual rule is that the section should be left in a stable state (a section that has survived multiple edits with nobody having a problem with it) -- which may or may not be the current state -- until there is a clear consensus at the RfC (which may happen before the official close). Also, several editors have declared that they intend to ignore the result of the RfC if it doesn't go their way, pointing to alleged off-wiki canvasing. I have expressed no opinion on the legitimacy of that argument or on the underlying content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: cookies seem insufficient. Cakes, pies, macaroons, and a Nobel is more adequate. A barn star might suffice in place of the Nobel. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon The content in dispute doesn't go into the article until the dispute is resolved. The last three diffs you present, are, the content in dispute being removed from the article by myself and others. There is no mandate (nor am I calling for one) of do not edit the article or that section at all (there is now since its under protection but that's not the point). There is the mandate of wait for the dispute to be resolved before adding the disputed content. The idea that I, myself, am refusing to allow editors to edit the article, per your comment "I would like to point out that multiple editors[1][2][3][4][5]-(#5 is myself)- are of the opinion that the article section must be frozen in its current state until there is an official close" is false and disingenuous, and I refuse to assume AGF about it. Actually one more thing, don't cast aspersions, give me a diff for this "several editors have declared that they intend to ignore the result of the RfC" or strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is one last thing, I left that discussion, the page is on my watchlist so I am aware of what's happening and even left one comment on a semi-protected edit request which insinuated that a bunch of the editors there were criminals, two days ago (my time) and if it weren't for AN/I being on my watchlist, I wouldn't even be aware of this. You haven't made any request for sanction, but, aspersions again. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been the odd and illogical argument that the numerical majority should be allowed to declare that their position has consensus, that their correctness is self-evident, and therefore there is no need to wait for an outside closer. I'm open to explanation by an experienced and neutral party as to how this makes a shred of sense. If it does, who needs closers? Any of us can count, at least as high as these numbers go.
My guess is that the RfC will pass, simply because closes rarely go against the numbers, but that will not prove that waiting for a closer was a waste of time, or that those who insisted we do were obstructionists acting out of either bad faith or incompetence. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Diffs. please. I do not believe that any "odd and illogical argument that the numerical majority should be allowed to declare that their position has consensus, that their correctness is self-evident, and therefore there is no need to wait for an outside closer" exists other than in your imagination. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, I'm still waiting for your diffs to my inquiry, and my inquiry was about casting aspersions of wrongdoing. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cunard has closed the discussion, the result is to include Orlando into the article, not sure who can do that due protection, but feel free to add the content whenever desired. Thank god this RfC is over. Goodbye, godspeed, and may I never have to meet so many new editors under these circumstances ever again. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And the close statement said not a word about the main thrust of the No arguments. But am I going to challenge this close? Nope. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The three main objections were: 1. Too soon/sourcing (addressed in closing as reliablesources were subsequently available), 2. Canvassing (Largely irrelevant given the amount of supports, and even many of the supposed 'canvassed' had legitimate arguments.) 3. Not in scope where scope is defined as something other than the list's actual scope and/or arguments about Islam not being the sole cause of the attack. Your personal objection falls into this category given you argued "This list, being almost entirely without context, should be limited to attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations (ISIL does not do that)." The list is named 'List of Islamist terrorist attacks' not 'List of attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations' which would be a completely ridiculous scope given the sourcing requirements that would entail. Your stated objection is actually the weaker of the three main opposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually my thinking evolved somewhat during the 10+ days after I wrote that, and my !vote can't be encapsulated into that one sentence. Had I anticipated that someone would eventually come along and astutely identify the weakest part of my argument, and attack it to discredit the whole thing, I would have been careful to go back and rephrase that sentence. My overall argument was consistent with those of multiple other editors including several with far more experience than me. I'm still learning about Wikipedia politics—and particularly the ways of this page, where open hostility is de rigueur, and which I do my best to avoid. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism & hate-speech by User:Unstored Data

Hello,

How could a user that have been editing articles that way [116][117][118][119] still be able to contribute?

Regards,

105.156.203.29 (talk)

That's... not good. Even though the edits were in May, Unstored Data has never expressed remorse for them or retracted the sentiment. I've blocked indefinitely as there's no guarantee that kind of outburst doesn't happen again. Any admin is free to unblock without consulting me if a good unblock reason is provided or they think the block is unreasonable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is 105.156.203.29, the same as this IP, blocked by Huon for one week? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping Huon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Donovan Shavis Born November 19

It's a hoax by User:MediaMadiaBot and 76.125.78.205. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Xx236, feel free to put up the CSD tag again with the warning that if the editor touches it again, you will take the case to AN/3. Editwarring over the CSD is issue 1 and the creator may not remove the tag from the article under any circumstances except blatant vanadalism is issue 2. AN/3 is quicker at dealing with this than AN/I since many editors here are not admins, myself included. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have warned the editor. If an admin gets to it and the issue isn't resolved, please resolve. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like this has been an ongoing problem, given that the article for Donovan Shavis was salted, and this is likely just the person's latest sockpuppet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've tagged all of the various socks and IPs. Offhand this looks like it's just some bored kid creating hoax articles about himself. His first article got salted and he's since created it in a new location. He doesn't seem to have more than one article open at a time and I'd wager that he only opened the most recent accounts since it's summer and ennui has firmly set into place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• On a side note, I don't think that SPI is necessary since he doesn't seem to have more than one account at a time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Active vandal and sock

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

---

Resolved

 – user blocked by Widr

Please block Bayin0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalizing and reverting my attempts to repair. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise for rationale. Brianhe (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

A few days back, I started an AfD discussion for 2016 Ramadan attacks, which was created by E.M.Gregory. Since then, he has committed actions that wander into WP:BADGER territory and fail WP:AGF.

First off, he directly accuses an IP user of being a WP:SOCK account for Ianmacm without providing any evidence outside of the diffs (which don't indicate much of anything), and instead of taking the issue to WP:SPI where a professional could've verified his suspicions.

Second off, he puts an edit summary that assumes the people voting for the article's deletion are basing their arguments on the grounds of WP:IDL, even though these people (including me) have given legitimate-sounding reasoning based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Third off, he makes it clear in his edit summary that he suspects Ferpalnum and has tagged the user as a WP:SPA, along with more sockpuppet suspicion, though Ferpalnum insists he is not based on when he opened his account.

Fourth off (and I find this one to be the most hilarious of them all), he sends me this message on my talk page, right after he explains why his article should be kept.

Now, it's honestly fair game either way if his article is kept or deleted, but E.M.Gregory's recent behavior is rather troublesome (not to mention irksome) and it needs to be addressed properly here in some way or form. Parsley Man (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above seems to be fairly normal behaviour. On contentious AfDs its fairly normal to note an editor with little or no prior editing experience and it's normal to ask the question about sockpuppets when you think its the case (although he should have taken it to SPI). He's free to have his opinion on why another editor is voting, if he thinks its because of WP:IDL that's his right, and he can note it if he likes below their comment so long as he isn't being malicious about it. I don't know why he sent you the message, but, it doesn't seem to be a PA or anything malicious, just a bit sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start writing "disclosure; non-admin comment" for all of my comments at AN/I from now on because I've been confused for an administrator far too many times at this point. So, Disclosure; non-admin comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed about the sockpuppet allegation and would have let it ride if it had been a one-off. However, there is a pattern of failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits. The request on Parsley Man's talk page is outside the range of acceptable conduct for an AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though, I'll review them now, see if I can see the relation or not. No, no I won't, since the accused has already commented about it, didn't see it was you Ian that was being accused. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look, if I were to consider my personal experience with Ian and these comments my conclusion would be this. The first diff, not a similar speech pattern although conflated, Muslim and Islamism showed up a lot on the Islamist terrorist attacks talkpage... now I wonder why that is, it couldn't have anything to do with the people conflating Muslims with Islamist could it? (sarcasm of course). The second diff, there's nothing alike, Ian is in my experience civil even patient, casting aspersions is not his MO. The last diff, anybody, literally anybody, could have said that. On Wikipedia saying "Gone ahead and done away with that section as is..." is like saying "Hello, I am currently doing work" in the real world. The diffs substantiate the accusation of sockpuppetry as much as a broken egg substantiates a murder conviction. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable personal attack

At what point did it become acceptable to tell another editor "it's a pity you even have an account"? Unless it has done, an admin intervention would be appropriate, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to an editor making what could be construed as a snide remark...? Wasn't that unacceptable? In any case, it's hardly a hanging offence. Propose Immediate close as all this is going to do is spread the same discussion above to here. And there's plenty of that already. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's only half of the sentence - "it's a pity you even have an account, as your time is wasted here, with so many unsolved crimes in our fair city...?" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If your oppose !vote hadn't been quite so WP:POINTy, maybe he wouldn't have reacted? His reaction is a rather low-level dig at both you and Moriori (who really didn't need to become involved either) and really not worthy of an ANI thread. FIM is right: close this before it becomes silly and someone says something actionable. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You're attempting to deflect; the comment was not addressed to me, but to another editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely no attempt to deflect, but if you come running to ANI all steps of a discussion are looked at. Including yours. If your support !vote hadn't been POINTy there would have been no initial response. If Moriori hadn't made an ill-advised dig there would have been no response. You may want to try and force administrative action against Cassianto on the basis of some personal grudge and have found a pathetically minor infraction to beat him with, but the background circumstances start with what can be seen as a WP:tendentious comment by you, and you have to accept a share of the responsibility. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG for further information. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The question is if such a thing as quoted should ever be said, without regard to the circumstances. I'd say no, not calling for sanctions, but preferring to see no more of this kind. Did you call Andy's vote oppose because it opposes the opposes? - I thought it was a support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course you don't. I suggest you also see WP:BOOMERANG. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For what should I? I wrote a support vote. I talked to two people on their talk to clarify their vote, on their talk to not inflame the situation. One archived, the other asked back. Boomerang flying where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any action to you, which should be obvious from my comments. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, we cannot avoid context, for remarks made, surely. No, we can't! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you check the context? Looked harmless enough to me, we had much worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto's comment is also fairly harmless - certainly nothing worthy of an AFI filing. At least Cassianto did not refer to anyone's opinion as "repugnant" as someone did, which is much more snarky than Cassianto's. Time this silliness was closed as the time-wasting nonsense it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) It's a sentence in an RfA which has already been made problematic by two subjects that tend to get people emotional, "infobox" and "incivility", both unsubstantiated regarding the candidate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• From the editnotice when you lodge your vote on an RFA "Please remain civil, even if you find your statements being challenged. Please be aware that the community has authorized bureaucrats to clerk at RfA, so the bureaucrats may appropriately deal with comments and/or votes which they deem to be inappropriate." If you think its a problem, notify a crat. The community was/is generally fed up with the RFA process and authorised changes to the process specifically to make it less antagonistic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

At what point did it become acceptable... - I don't know, but it was before I arrived three years ago (there's policy, and then there's common practice; I'm speaking of the latter). One of the first things I encountered was a user being forgiven for telling another to "fuck off and die". I disagree with this, but virtually no hostile language is bright-line forbidden. As I learned, far worse than that is forgiven if the recipient "deserved it". Maybe this user "deserved it", maybe they didn't. Since I object to the entire concept, I try to stay out of any discussion of whether a specific individual "deserved" open hostility. I'm just responding to your opening question, Andy. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It is obviously not an appropriate comment, however it sort of blends into the background noise of their general harsh tone. Frankly Cassianto regularly dances on the happy side of actionable incivility. That being said, it was in response to a comment about equally as snarky. I personally don't think this requires the attention of an administrator, though more eyes on the pattern may be helpful. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, unless we can ever get a 'no responding to others votes' at RFA, it will always be vulnerable to that sort of snark. It might be worth floating the proposal to allow clerking by any administrator rather than just crats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very much disagree. We respond to each others opinions and expect civility everywhere else on Wikipedia, so what is so special about RfA that we should have to pick between no discussion or hostility? I think a better solution would be to enforce these expectations as a community. I don't think this is an RfA issue anyway, Cassianto's incivility happens in many other places.

"what is so special about RfA" Well the basic premise to start. Elsewhere on wikipedia conversations are generally not about the editor themselves unless its a noticeboard issue. RFA is entirely about the premise of rating another person, evaluating their judgement, passing a personal opinion on their ability to do the job. It starts from where dispute resolution sometimes ends up. It *is* possible to have civility there, however when you are basically being asked to rate someones skills/as a person, you will get a higher level of conflict than other areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only should keeping decorum be done by admins and not just 'crats, it should be done by any uninvolved editor. This is all of our responsibility. Frankly I am tempted to stop participating in RfAs so that there will be someone to actually enforce the level of basic respect that page says it expects. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that proposal is the best idea. Poor reasoning should be questioned, unfortunately, some people do that with added snark. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw the exchange earlier, and it reminded me of this. I was going to hat the whole conversation following Andy's vote with a message along the lines of "Not now chaps", but couldn't work out how to make {{hat}} and {{hab}} work in the context of an RfA vote without messing up the numbering. A shame, as it might have avoided this thread. I have been mulling this over, but I have to say HighInBC, you do seem to stalk Cassianto waiting for him to snap and have done a few civility blocks too .... perhaps it's best to ignore him and let another admin take the flak? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible Ritchie. Perhaps (as per the comments after the first oppose), the only course should be to move the comments to the talk page and cap them there. It would have been better still if there wasn't a POINTy !vote with which to react, but we can't have everything, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather clever, SchroCat! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)