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

Moving discussion from wikimedia research mailing list

I'm bringing this to ANI from the wikimedia research mailing list; the thread is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-August/005324.html I've taken enough positions on the mailing list to count as an interested party.

Summary

Researchers used a bunch of accounts to create a bunch of articles using natural-language understanding techniques to attribute every sentence to a web page. Many of the web pages are unreliable and/or not useful for encyclopedia building (i.e. definitions of specialist terms in general-purpose dictionaries). They published the research results at https://siddbanpsu.github.io/publications/ijcai16-banerjee.pdf The pages may need an uninvolved eye over them.

Reported usernames

• Brownweepy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theatremania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhopebhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicdac123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My take

Other than any potential cleaning up of the articles I'm not sure that any action is warranted against the editors, since they were acting in good faith. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I just picked four new articles from three of those usernames at random, and they all looked okay if just a little weird. Do you know whether they have had offending articles deleted yet? 184.96.133.183 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All appear to have article and content-related discussions on their talk pages, but the line where normal editing stops and the research starts is unclear. Some have clearly been deleted, see for example Mazaua, Miss Tourism Queen International, Buddhism Today, Mobile Marketing Association, New York Model Management and Johnny Klimek. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just WP:PRODd Talonid, which appears to be medical information. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's so bad, that I've just deleted it as G1, nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODd Sonia Bianchetti Garbato, Formula Opel ‎, Randy Stradley and Amiens International Film Festival . I think I've now looked at all the recent stuff. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting some of these, in whole or part, with the edit summary "created by irresponsible machine editing by sockpuppets of a researcher [1]" Any admin who wishes may restore them without asking me if they want to take responsibility. I am not yet blocking the sockpuppets, but I encourage any admin who wishes to do so. And, the experimenters should note that their program used as sources several Wikipedia mirrors, well know n a such to all experienced human editors. Most were already removed by the time I got there. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

their results

The authors say "We also created several articles using our approach in the English Wikipedia, most of which have been retained in the online encyclopedia." They claim if one looks more closely "The entire content added by our approach was retained only in 12 articles, "

They have no statement that their work has been approved by our research committee, and I do not see any statement that it has been approved by their university's research committee. Tbe presumably think they have dealt with any objections by their statement that the articles "are constantly monitored".

I consider this irresponsible editing, They admit they did not attempt to find our rules. That they thought there were no rules about this is no more a defense than a sockpuppet claiming that they did not know of rules about sockpuppettry. True, the only rule we actually display to people is about copyright. We could put a mandatory link to a list of policies or even to a page containing the key policies, but this would only be seen by a contributor as the usual click-through boilerplate.

The real problem is what it shows about our own failures. Not just that the articles were not detected, but that many dozens of bona fide editors worked on these articles without realizing their nature. This matches what anyone can see in the history of articles at AfD, that too many people make cosmetic fixes or fill in references without looking at the context. Some are of course explicitly bots, bot some are humans doing bot-assisted work who have the responsibility of checking what they do, and a depressing number are purely manual edits. As a positive note, the first WPedian to see the article I just deleted did very correctly add a template for "cleanup|reason=Poor grammar, unprofessional tone, better sources needed" . DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say I am one of the humans who performed inadequately, for I accepted an AfC with weirdly written but decipherable content at Faustus (Mamet play) and merged it into Faustus (play), without even fixing the weirdness. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem concerns the research ethics of these researchers. Their computational approach to creating articles clearly failed, generating obvious nonsense. Yet, they uploaded these nonsense articles and took advantage of the often long time it takes for us to find them or that instead of deleting such articles, we try to fix them. They then use these issues with how we respond to claim their research was successful when in fact it was an utter failure.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the usernames associated with the incident. I removed one of the userlinks as I realised that it was not used in this experiment. We made some edits using that username but most were as-is content , hence there was copyvio, which a reviewer had reverted in most cases, and we edited manually in a few cases. We did say that several edits were retained on Wikipedia in terms of quantity, but quality is still a problem as evident from the text. Moreover, we did use a human eye to check the content generated before posting it on Wikipedia. We did not want to use a bot to randomly go and create articles. Also, we ccould have deleted the articles after creation, but we saw several edits being made to multiple articles to improve them and it seemed they were adding some value. Furthermore, the rules were unclear -- however, as we are not conducting anything else now, I will make sure that I inform all researchers in this area about what's acceptable. I agreed to give away all the usernames I used such that the cleaning can be done. - Brownweepy (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia for the researcher's own aims. I think that a site ban is the appropriate response.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that their aim was disruption; the disruption was clearly just of incidental concern to them, which is problematic enough. In any event, I also support site bans in this instance, without reservation. Further, in light of their apparently complete lack of effort to engage with the research community or the WMF and approach their research process through proper channels, their research institution definitely needs to be informed of their behaviour here, and the disruption it has caused. They clearly used this project as a testbed for their work without the consent or foreknowledge of the community, creating a mess our volunteers will now have to spend numerous editorial hours attempting to clean up.

Frankly, I find garden variety vandals markedly less offensive than this. The professional ethics of these researchers need a serious check; their efforts to explain above, while apparently honest, are seriously lacking. Any experienced researcher should know better than to leverage (and potentially disrupt) an open project in their research without first clearing it with the institution managing that project. This is seriously amateur hour and might be comical if not for the work created out of their fumbling. Let's make sure this gets addressed at every relevant level. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, as I have mentioned earlier, disrupting was never the goal. I am trying to address this with everyone of you from the Wikipedia community. The thing is previous work on this: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024 was done long back by other researchers. Given that they worked on critical categories such as diseases, nothing about such research was mentioned on Wikipedia. Moreover, our similar work was covered by Wikimedia newsletter earlier [2] and nothing was mentioned as to get things checked about this kind of work. We would definitely have involved the wikimedia research community had we seen any related information on such issues. We definitely did not want to do anything of this sort which this research (https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/127472) claims to do by forcibly randomizing content. I completely understand that the articles would need edits from editors, but we tried to keep the number of articles to bare minimum level. I am just gaining experience now as a researcher (doctoral student), but want to make sure these things do not get repeated. Most of the things mentioned here have been covered in the research mailing list, I would request to please keeping it there, so that I can get an entire set of information at the same place and bring it to the notice of the research committee (the committee to whom I presented my proposal to conduct this work). My advisor would also be posting on that thread within a few days as he is travelling now and he would provide his thoughts on the same. Brownweepy (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should hack into your dissertation the night before your defense and add some facially reasonable-looking garbage to the footnotes and bibliography. What in the world is wrong with you? EEng 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently, "disrupting was never the goal". Brownweepy, this masterpiece was one of the gifts brought to us by this exercise. Approximately how much volunteer editor time do you think it would take to fix that, if it is fixable? What would you say the threshold for being disruptive is? Was any consideration whatsoever given to the volunteer hours this exercise would waste or the trouble it would cause? Don't feel you have to be too detailed in your answers - the questions are largely rhetorical. Randy Stradley is a real person, by the way, was that a consideration, at all? --Begoon ^talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has tried to improve this encyclopedia pretty much every day for the past seven years. I only have a 35 year year old bachelor's degree and am far from the exalted status of a PhD candidate. I am surprised that a PhD candidate like you writes in such a muddled fashion and would set out on a "research" project that would end up disrupting the #6 website in the world, creating really poor content and making extra work for volunteers who will get no academic credit for cleaning up your messes. Your "research" seems to be both without value and actually counterproductive. Ponder this, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)l

• Brownweepy, there seems a general view that (a) your machine-generated articles are below the minimum acceptable standard for Wikipedia contributions, and (b) you don't seem to care that your "research" is predicated on other random strangers cleaning up after you. So we can move forward, will you and your fellow researchers agree not to create any more machine-generated articles, and to go back over your previous creations to fix the more nonsensical parts? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Euryalus Yes, I have mentioned this that we did not add any content after Feb 2016 (6 months before) and we will not add anything new. If we do anything on generation. we will get it evaluated thru a diff crowdsourcing technique and not 'disrupt' content on Wikipedia. I will go over the old created content (already have edited many when earlier reviewers said content has issues) and fix them as far as i can. Also, if content that seems totally garbage, I will request deletion of entire articles.If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I understand that content was below acceptable standard, and I do care that time was needed to fix the content in several cases by editors. Edit: I made small reverts to the content that was added from our machine generated content in 3 articles. Could you please check if the changes seem fine with the reasoning? I will proceed with the others in that case a few hours from now.Brownweepy (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Brownweepy: thanks for the assurances; if you could review and rectify all the content created as part of this research, that would be great. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: I have corrected the issues for the first account, removed content in several cases, fixed grammaticalities and also validated info from sources (removed if the source ceases to exist where the information was not relevant). I will continue working on the other accounts. If you see anything wrong with the edits I made recently, please let me know. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I recognize your desire to attempt to rectify this situation, and it is appreciated, but you must understand that you've put the volunteer community in a bit of a spot here. The problem is, for someone doing research on how to generate content on Wikipedia, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with the project's procedures and policies. You've said a few times now that you didn't realize you were violating any guidelines by conducting this research as you did. But that's a pretty wild assumption--it doesn't seem you applied even cursory diligence in exploring what our rules might be on such matters. Did you contact so much as a single person at the Wikimedia Foundation or our volunteer community before coming to this conclusion and then bowling through with generating and adding large amounts of junk content through multiple accounts? That's a pretty basic step to ignore in conducting research in an ethical and effective manner and in failing to make that effort, you not only denied the community the opportunity to decide whether we wish to allow/participate in this research, you precluded any efforts we might have made to minimize the disruption and affect a quick clean-up of this machine-generated nonsense material.

This is all the more galling for the fact that you clearly anticipated that you would be generating work for editors here; part of your metrics for judging the success of your process are predicated in whether editors retained or removed the content added. Which, by the way, huh? The fact that you felt that you could draw a strong empirical correlation between a) whether an article was retained or deleted and b) the coherence and general quality of the generated content, is just further evidence that you are woefully unfamiliar with the topic you are conducting research on; otherwise you would have understood the vast number of procedural and systemic issues that make drawing that conclusion from that result a ludicrous assumption. And it's clear that drumming up this "evidence" of the success of your process (when compared against other methods for creating machine-generated content) was the only reason for adding the content to Wikipedia, as otherwise you would have just analyzed the results of your content by applying your heuristics, without uploading the content at all (which, if you weren't going to reach out to the community before adding that material, is exactly what you should have done).

So, again, this all puts us in a tough place. You violated both multiple behavioural and editorial guidelines (and the trust of the community broadly) and have created a lot of work for our volunteers, most of which probably could have been avoided if you'd done basic diligence in reaching out to the community before rushing forward. Even with your willingness to engage with the material to remove that which is unsuitable, there simply has been/will be a lot of effort to sort all of this out, both in article and talk space. So if we don't address this situation, we risk inviting a repeat with the next researcher working on computational approaches to natural language who wants to use us the site as a testbed without working with the community to minimize disruption.

Now, in light of the fact that you genuinely seem to want to eliminate the consequences of your previous approach here, I expect you'll avoid a ban (though it's hard to say; some may take a very dim view of the socking). And despite the above, I'm leaning towards this option, if only because we can clean this mess up faster with your help than without. And who knows, maybe we'll even get a new regular editor out of the whole mess. But I would be prepared for the community to also see the need to examine this whole matter in detail and to observe this as an obvious example of how not to conduct outside research on this project. Because researchers and institutions need to realize that this project is not a laboratory for their work, not unless they make an effort to work with the community. Sorry to be so hard-nosed and blunt about all of this, but in the event that this gets more community attention than you were hoping for, I think you should be told why, so that you can appreciate that this is about fixing the broken content and preventing future disruption, and not about punishing you for mistakes you already recognize. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: Snow Rise, thanks for your note. I understand what you have written here.I would request a delay in the ban such that I can clean up all the mess (should not take more than a couple of days as most of the articles in the usernames have already been deleted). I agree that it is necessary to fix this from a research perspective. I am planning to write a summary of all the learning in the research mailing list and would request you to please add anything that I might miss. I want to bring it to the notice of everyone somewhat related to my research (university, research committee, advisor) and also to other researchers I know who work on similar areas. I admit that the community was involved unknowingly and it is important from an ethical point of view. While we tried to post minimal articles, other researchers might try generating a lot more and this certainly needs to be addressed and stopped. While no justification can be provided in this case, our assumptions (based on our prev work being written about in an initial research newsletter and also existing work in this area cited above) kind of made us believe in things that were inappropriate. It is important to decide with representatives from WMF on what can be /not done. The premise of this kind of work(even the previous ones) rests with the belief that if content can pass on as written by humans is a success, which is a highly invalid claim. I think a major section in the upcoming newsletter would help get better community attention on these aspects. Brownweepy (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is the list of accounts at the head of this thread complete? EEng 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yes, it is. There was one extra account that I listed earlier, but it was already fixed long back to resolve copyvios. I fixed contentin all articles from brownweepy account. Will proceed with the others. Please let me know if you find anything wrong with my recent corrections. Update: Second username articles checked and errors corrected. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made corrections and removed several content that looked garbage in the articles from my above mentioned accounts. I was not sure during the start of this discussion whether I should go and edit it myself as people in the research list were actively participating in a discussion. Thanks to a couple of notes yesterday, that made me go and change/revert/correct the edits. Also, several of the articles from such users have already been removed by other administrators. In some cases, the references that I used did not seem reliable and I have removed content and such references. I have gone through all the articles. I would request people of this thread to take a look if possible to the recent corrections I did and if anything looks wrong, please let me know. As I have mentioned earlier, my advisor will participate in the discussion in the mailing list. But I want to summarize all that came up in the discussion and I will post that experience on the mailing list soon -- starting from multiple account violation to the lack of informing the Wikimedia research community. Brownweepy (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

there's something else you should realise that was mentioned earlier: One of the article subjects you chose was a living person. We make special efforts to verify information and ensure accuracy for articles on living human beings, because of the possible damage that could be done. They are written in the WP:BLP policy, which is of our fundamental rules, and one that we enforce with particular rigour. Of all the possible Wikipedia material to use for experimenting, this is the most out-of-bounds. If your university's research committee had realised you were going to machine-edit such material on our live site, they would not conceivably have given you permission. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DCG, I understand what you mentioned here. Had we considered informing the Wikipedia community before, probably everything would have been discussed at the very beginning and such things would not have happened. I have tried to address all edits and verified the information, although I agree it might be too late. The Univ committee probably also might not be very conversant about the rules and policies, but that could have been tackled had a conversation with someone from the community would have been done at the very beginning. I will discuss all of these with the committee members (will be back to school next week) as I think it requires major attention from everyone's perspective. When I see the first work in this area (http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024), they worked on category of film actors, which might have/had similar impact. All the information, if summarized at a common place, would help us (and other researchers) to fully follow the rules and also prevent future instances of such disruption. -Brownweepy (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What Univ is this? EEng 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brownweepy. EEng 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng Penn State. Sorry I saw your msg now. You can see the discussion on the mailist list too. My advisor will write over there by end of this week. Brownweepy (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs further cleanup. I just deleted Wube Haile Maryam as, even after all the nonsense was removed (and this really was a dreadful article), the remainder was wrong. I also corrected Adriana Roel, which was already revisited by Brownweepy but his edit did nothing to solve the problems he created. The same applies to Oceania Cycling Championships which was a nonsensical article with copyvio problems ("attracted members of the public eager to see high calibre international cyclists." in the source vs. "attract members of the public who are interested in watching high calibre international cyclists." in the article). Considering the bad history, the lack of content now, and the errors still remaining in those few lines, I have simply deleted it as a test page, and someone can actually write a real article about the subject. I also deleted Robert Lortac, also corrected by Brownweepy but still a mess of copyvio sentences and wrong information. I fully support a ban of all four accounts, this really isn't acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to create a new draft for the first article mentioned here (Wube Haile) and have submitted that in article drafts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wube_Haile_Maryam). Brownweepy (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant to WP:ANI, so I've given a content-based reply at User talk:Brownweepy. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Endorse sitebans, although perhaps give Brownweepy time to fix any articles they would like to. This is taking the community for a ride. Blythwood (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit Brownweepy appears to admit cut and pasting unseen references from another wikipedia article to build their new article and shows no understanding that that might not be optimal behaviour. I give up. I'm walking away and un-following all the relevant pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I am not sure if I correctly explained what I did. I did not cut and paste any words here. I did use one of the references as that same reference was found in 4 different articles on Wikipedia. However, after you mentioned it, I removed that reference. I searched on google books for the book, did not find it. however, I found the same info in another google book and have added that as a reference now. I am trying to make sure that I am doing everything to get the best information from the other sources. I am not doing anything machine-generated in this case. Furthermore, I have created it in drafts namespace such that it does not cause any major damages and I am working on it and trying my best to improve. Brownweepy (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I will try to explain my action on the draft article that I was working on. I did not think that I will have to explain something in such detail even if I am trying to write something on my own and not any random machine-generated content, but it seems that it is kind of unavoidable. I found some sources on the web(well, one of them being marked as unreliable) and then tried to write a very short article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wube_Haile_Maryam. I found some information about the personality on 2 Wikipedia pages, I noted them in the draft as I considered the info important. However, I could not directly find any resource on the web (or google books). So, I kept the reference as the same as in the other Wikipedia articles. I put everything in drafts. I admitted what I did because I thought that way, other reviewers can help me in finding the best sources. Yes, I got a suggestion that google books might have better sources -- then I looked up and found the info and entered that reference. I tried to follow all other suggestions that have been made on my talk page(including removing linking to a disambiguation page, use of pronoun, etc.). I tried to assimilate the information from the sources and avoid any copyvios. Even in a prev post here, I asked for feedback just to be sure I am on the right track -- both learning how to make good quality edits and contribute. Please check the history if you feel I am claiming anything wrong. But, I guess all my actions, even admitting something for the intention of learning, are appearing negative . I do not want to ruin anything here, so I won't be making further edits as I guess it is continuing to create more problems (despite my best intentions). Please remove the draft article if it seems inadequate as per the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks everyone. And extremely sorry for such a terrible long post. Brownweepy (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent behavior by Ghoul flesh

Editor Ghoul flesh has been making personal attacks in his edit summaries.

1. 20:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
2. 23:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Side note - An investigation for this user, is also under way for edit warring here.

Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I've left ANI notice on their talk page. — RainFall 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The second item is stale and not all that bad. The first, though, is fresh and a clearcut personal attack. This editor seems to misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, we have articles about highly controversial topics. That does not mean that an editor is perfectly free to call another editor a "moronic fuckface". I suggest a block until the editor agrees to abandon such disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Definitely think the first diff is a clear cut personal attack but as Cullen328 stated above, I don't think the second one is as clear cut. I think that the user is clearly not assuming good faith on these edits as well. I have some concerns as well based on the edit warring discussion about the users ability to maintain a neutral point of view, but I will reserve those concerns as they have not yet proven to be an issue. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have issued a 31-hour block for that first example, and I'm prepared to escalate should anything like that be repeated once this one expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• It seems like Ghoul flesh has also demonstrated WP:NOTHERE behavior, as he/she made this aggressive comment questioning his inclusion on WP:AN3RR, even though he/she has made comments ([3] [4] [5] [6]) on it before making the aforementioned post, so he/she should already have an idea why he/she is on WP:AN3RR in the first place. Parsley Man (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I have to agree, this is a relatively light ban. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• But is it suitable, since he also demonstrated the WP:NOTHERE behavior? Parsley Man (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised it wasn't either much longer or a NOTHERE indef. GAB^gab 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Same here. Parsley Man (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Upon getting out of his block, Ghoul flesh has failed to assume good faith on my part, demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior on Malik Shabazz's talk page ([7]) and making baseless accusations of bias ([8]). Not sure what kind of punishment this requires, but I for one am not convinced he learned much from his 31-hour block, let alone annoyed by his behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this assessment, Ghoul flesh has definitely exhibited further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Parsley Man notified prior editors so they could review the changes and good faith should have been demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee placed the original block; pinging to notify of the new concerns. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to clarify that the editors I notified were those who would've disagreed with the material I was contesting. But this did not give him any right to exhibit that kind of reaction. In fact, I would say that he was perfectly free to do the same with editors he would've trusted to even the playing field. I certainly wouldn't have held it against him. Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one that accused you of bias. I find it hilarious that you're gonna report me for that. Quis separabit? was exactly right. You're oblivious to the fact that WP:POV goes both ways. You should be blocked if anyone else, for your tireless reverting of information on the article that you simply don't like. Ghoul flesh talk 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The difference is that you have been warned about this kind of aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior a couple of days before and got blocked for it. Now you return, and clearly there's still a problem if someone (me) reports you again and another user backs up this report. Parsley Man (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment and support for a longterm block: How this user has contributed for over a year without figuring out how utterly unacceptable this behaviour is (let alone without facing additional blocks) is quite beyond me, but this recourse to personal attacks and offensive profanity to underscore aggressive, caustic and insulting sentiments needs to be met with an immediate community response. The absolute lack of any respect for WP:Civility (a pillar policy) is so profound here, it amounts to a basic social competency issue.

Based on "just" the diffs here, I have considerable doubt this user has a temperament which will allow them to contribute productively to a collaborative project like this without establishing a WP:Battleground wherever they go, but right now their perspective is so far out of whack with community standards, they can't even see what is wrong with their behaviour, as evidenced by comments such as this: Wikipedia is not censored. I can call you whatever I'd like." Actually, no, you absolutely cannot, Ghoul flesh; Wikipedia content is not censored, but there are numerous behavioural policies which restrict what you can and cannot call another contributor on this project (for starters, you need to immediately read WP:Civility the provisions of which are amongst the most basic and non-negotiable conditions of participating on Wikipedia). If you really made it this long here without having this pointed out to you shines an unfavourable light on our own current standards for confronting incivil behaviour in a timely fashion, but let me make this plain now: if you want to contribute here, you are expected to treat others with respect and an even temper, no matter how right you think you are, no matter how wrong you think they are, and regardless of how powerfully you feel about your reasons for being here (which seems largely to be about righting great wrongs).

Because this user's behaviour fails to comport so completely with basic community standards, because of the recent previous block, and because of the WP:IDHT attitude/inability to acknowledge the issues and promise to work on them, I don't see any alternative but a community sanction in the form of a block, and I think the minimum contemplated here ought to be two months. And if we see so much as a single "moronic fuckface" type comment at any point thereafter, we shouldn't hesitate to move directly to an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Update - It appears Ghoul flesh has calmed down and gravitated away from the situation. He is now working devotedly on presidential elections in South Dakota and there doesn't seem to be any problems there at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Two Month Ban

Per my comments immediately above, I propose an immediate ban for repeated, blatant, and deeply hostile WP:Personal attacks, WP:Battleground behaviour, a general lack of comportment with WP:Civility and a steadfast refusal to listen to the community's concerns about these disruptive behaviours, or even begin to familiarize with/internalize basic behavioural policies. Given the combativeness and level of animosity in this instance, I suggest a two month ban, perhaps with an option to appeal after a month if Ghoul flesh can present a considered statement to the community demonstrating that they understand how far they have departed from expected behavioural norms for this project with a promise to correct this behaviour moving forward. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support a shorter block, but with a pageban (durations up to the discretion of the closing admin). At the very least, it seems clear that they cannot collaborate cordially in this subject area. See also: "Grow up" GAB^gab 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support a shorter block. Imposing a two-month ban now (especially after he just got out of a 31-hour block) seems a bit extreme at the moment for me. If he comes out of his block and continues to exhibit such behavior, then yes, a two-month ban would be appropriate then. Parsley Man (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Parsley, as you're one of the people who has had to directly engage with GF (and may have to again) I'm inclined to defer to your perspective; if you have specific ban length or alternative sanction you feel would be appropriate, I can partially strike and amend the proposal above. Or if you don't feel comfortable suggesting one, we can just leave it to further comments or the closing admin to sort out the details. If we continue to see battleground behaviour though, I definitely think the next block needs to be scaled up to a few weeks at a minimum; the profanity-laced PA's we've seen here are beyond the pall, and there's not been so much as a single word from GF so far to show that he understands how badly his misunderstanding of our behavioural guidelines were (i.e. "I can call you whatever I want"/"moronic fuckface"). I truly feel we'd just be postponing the inevitable (that is, the next ANI discussion) if we defer this without some assurance from GF that they will work on their behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I have in mind, though. I'll just leave it up to the input of others. Parsley Man (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as a two month ban. Due to the continued behavior, especially after a block just came off, I think it is adequate and that Parsley Man's proposal would be too short to impress upon the importance of following the wikipedia policies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I kinda like this guy. Also I'm like sorry and stuff and realize my inappropriate behavior... whether you proceed with a further ban or not, my behavior should no longer be an issue. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Days after article unlocked, OWN behavior began again

The WP:OWN behavior at Superman by User:BaronBifford has started again, days after the article was unprotected. Numerous editors on that article submitted evidence to the ANI whose last comment I believe was here. Today he is edit-warring here.

I'm not sure if we need to fully protect the article again, but that may be necessary. Editors commenting on the ANI referenced above were suggesting a topic ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So much for the 3 revert rule. Now I guess it's just the 1 revert rule. BaronBifford (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not limited to violating 3rr. Edit-warring can be one edit. Where the article was locked primarily due to your previous edit-warring, going straight back to the same pattern of editing is generally not going to end well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:3RR states The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. clpo13_(talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the behavior with the edits resuming shortly after the article unlocked is a violation of WP:OWN and potentially WP:EDITWAR. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I almost blocked the Baron, but I got distracted by a glaring redundancy in the article and removed it; probably nobody would complain, but now I don't want to take any action for fear of WP:INVOLVED objections. I'd suggest, however, that someone else block the Baron; when you're blocked for something, the block expires, and you quickly resume the actions that prompted the block, it's time for a significantly longer block. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford is aware he's on thin ice. Before we reach for the kryptonite, can we see if he sticks to the talk page like I suggested here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: As an uninvolved administrator, I have reverted the article to the version that appeared when it was last fully protected. It would seem some positive contributions were reverted in doing. Unfortunately, this appears necessary for the editors to discuss how to move forward without engaging in an editor war. Hopefully someone can restore any positive changes endorsed by consensus once the immediate issues are resolved. As to the fate of the individual editor, I agree that there needs to be an additional step taken than simply just protecting the article and allowing the edit war to continue. Mkdw^talk 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the previous ANI and Talk:Superman. It's taken hours but here are my observations:

• There is a consensus among the editors at Talk:Superman that BaronBifford has exhibited WP:OWN: 1, 2, and 3. The last ANI also came to this conclusion.
• BaronBifford has knowingly ignored consensus, sometimes waiting weeks or months to pass, to implement their changes: 1.
• BaronBifford has occasionally resorted to WP:ATTACKs: 1, 2, and 3
• BaronBifford can work as a collaborative editor when they choose to do so. As seen this statement which led to Talk:Superman#COIE. The proposal was positively received and introduced here.

BaronBifford was already given WP:ROPE and warnings will only serve to waste more of the community's time. Their contributions do not exceed that of the need for collaboration. Despite their open distain bureaucracy, I recommendation that WP:PROBATION be placed against BaronBifford in lieu of a block/ban and be given these guidelines:

• Prohibition in editing any section currently under discussion (not archived) at the talk page except for changes that receive consensus at the respective talk page.
• Any content that has received a prior consensus cannot be changed without a new consensus being formed. Consensus must be determined by both a reasonable amount of participation and elapsed time.
• WP:1RR

TLDR: Specific prohibitions be placed against the editor in lieu of a topic ban or block. Otherwise a block under WP:DE and WP:IDHT per this. Mkdw^talk 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unfair to lock all editors out of the article because of one edit warrior. Support unprotection, and blocking BaronBifford for the next two weeks. If he tries to continue the edit war with sockpuppet accounts, semi-protection or 30/500 protection can be used. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in this and as this will most likely be my last edit on Wikipedia for the seeable future as I have had it with this kinda stuff I wanna make sure I'm heard before I leave. The article already had an Admin NeilN involved on the talk page who was making suggestions to Barron when another admin decided to lock the article down. Why? Why lock out other editors when one is the issue? The history shows the OWNISH behavior by one editor, one. Now I'm sure I'll be told how I'm wrong, won't be the first time but the rest of us should not have been penalized when we have tried to work with him several times only to have the article locked down because he refuses to work with other editors.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• @DavidLeighEllis and WarMachineWildThing: I understand you're frustrated at the whole situation. The problem is that there is no clear consensus on how this should be handled. We've had calls for protection, blocks, editing restrictions, and more discussion. The article can be unprotected at any time but clearly unlocking the article before the situation is resolved does not work as evident the last time the article came off full protection. No one likes that the article is protected but unprotecting the article without having the edit war errupt again is completely contingent on blocking BaronBifford for which there is no consensus to do so. At least not yet. It does way more harm to the encyclopedia to allow the edit war to continue while we await an eerily quiet ANI thread to come to a consensus. That being said, they're clearly using this time to engage in the talk page. To what success, it's hard to say, but in the very least, I would like to see from them an acknowledgement that they will continue to do so for before making any contentious edits. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus for a block? Of course, there's (equally) no consensus for full protection, but it seems that you don't need any. I'll just wait until the article has been under six months of full protection, then file a request for Arbitration. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not even remotely comparable. The protection was never implemented as a solution to the root problem. It is not permanent and it is not the outcome of this ANI for which a consensus is being sought. The protection was a continuation of the previous measure implemented at the last ANI to allow this discussion to move forward. Locks are routinely implemented to for consensus to form during an edit war and a permanent full protection will not be the seeming consensus of this ANI either. Mkdw^talk 16:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Mkdw, but I don't think another round of full prot was the best solution here as it's not a single edit war that's the issue here but the continual edits and reverts of a single user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And I literally quote one line above, "The protection was never implemented as a solution...". It was to stop the immediate edit war. That's why we have Wikipedia:Protection policy. I also think you are misrepresenting the situation here NeilN. A single user?

• 20:27, 13 August 2016‎ TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,709 bytes) (+1,097)‎ . . (Undid revision 734362499 by BaronBifford (talk) not trivia, infoboxes are a quick overview) (undo | thank)
• 16:30, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Back to the same WP:OWN issue, with undiscussed wholesale removal of content, addition of contentious content, and no discussion beforehand on talk page. If this behavior continues, so must the ANI)
• 16:39, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Now you're edit-warring rather than following WP:BRD. I was about to discuss the issue on the talk page as you asked, but you edit-warred instead. I'm not spending any more time with back and forth. Returning to ANI)

Finding a solution is why we're here at ANI. Mkdw^talk 19:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I am misrepresenting the situation. The single user is BaronBifford. You might have missed this. [9], [10] In other words, the solution is WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I misread NeilN's comment and I'd like to strike a part of my previous comment. Mkdw^talk 02:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and they never even responded to you on the matter even after I asked them to do so. If more discussion or WP:ROPE is the consensus for a solution of this ANI, then I would naturally expect the protection to be removed. However, the fact that they ignored that direct inquiry and WP:ROPE had already been proposed in the past and demonstrated to be very ineffective as a remedy. I personally wouldn't support that recommendation as a solution because ROPE doesn't work if you keep feeding out more ROPE which is what we'd be doing yet again. We are essentially in the next step. Either prohibition on editing (such as using the talk page before making any edits to contentious sections -- which I think was already what you were asking them to do) or a block would allow editing to resume and known recourse to be applied without yet another ANI thread. Mkdw^talk 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block I have held off on doing this in hopes Barron would finally get it but to be quite frank I'm tired of the article being locked down because one single editor refuses to work with everyone and go by the consensus that is reached or even try to get one. We wouldn't be in this mess again for the second time in a month if they would stop OWNING the article. They have been given enough WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned and I quote "After all these years, I'm fed up. Fed up with hearing my professors joke about how shit Wikipedia is"[11]. They clearly do not care what anyone else thinks and after 2 ANI's for the same issue in just 1 month, something has to be done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support short term block and a topic ban from all articles relating to Superman, broadly construed: Rope has been given here and quickly exhausted, and an article with not-inconsiderable traffic and editorial activity has already been put under protection once, for what seems to be issues that mostly arise out of BaronBifford's refusal to accept consensus. I don't feel we need to see this bounced back to ANI for a third time in just a couple of weeks before making a call here, not with the evidence presented and a look at the state of that talk page. I commend the other editors here who have been patient in trying to convince BB to respect the consensus process so as to retain his other contributions, but it seems he is not going to take advantage of that patience and advice, so a ban (to underscore that this behaviour is disruptive in general) and a topic or page ban (to remove this editor from work on a subject they clearly feel too passionately about to work on without WP:OWN issues) seem to be in order. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reverts of Discussion Closure by User:SchroCat

In an attempt to resolve another issue at the ANI noticeboard, I took the action of closing a discussion that started several years ago and was recently active again and moving it to RfC using the principle of being bold. All the comments supported moving to RfC. User:SchroCat has reverted my closure twice now and threatened an ANI discussion. I believe my closure was valid and followed guidelines of WP:CLOSE. In good faith I notified all parties in the prior discussion of the move to an RfC, including SchroCat at their talk page. SchroCat did not bring issue of closure to me and simply reverted my closure with a threat in the edit summary. The actions are now disruptive and clearly in violation of how to contest closure per WP:CLOSE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Notification Reverted Notification of this discussion was made here and reverted, FYI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not the guardian of Wikipedia, nor are you an administrator or administrator. Your 'power' to close discussions is as equal as any other editors. My 'power' to re-open that is as equal as yours is to close. My revert was because you removed my comments, an extremely disruptive step to take. If you wish to close again, that is entirely up to you, but not with the rather tendentious removal of my valid comments. – SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing my comments. If you continue to edit war and remove the comments of another editor, your behaviour will face examination. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts: Revert 3 Revert 2 Revert 1 - I advise you to review WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as I have not asserted any power. I simply attempted to close the discussion and you added comments following that closure in the incorrect venue. To add your comments into the RfC is not my place and they did not belong in a closed discussion. I will not revert again as this is now a back and forth. I will allow the administrators to review this and proceed. Also, I have not removed any of your comments besides the ones placed after the closure. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Next time do not edit war and do not remove comments. At least you have clarified that you are not going to edit war further, although that is rather moot, as the thread was closed five minutes before you posted that. – SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user has now closed the discussion again with my closure comments only after adding back their comments and yet another threat for ANI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really see the point of closing an existing discussion just to start it again as an RFC. Why not just elevate the current one to an RFC? Obviously editors who have spent time debating the issue don't want to start the discussion again from scratch. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  I already commented in the new RfC, but have no problem with my comment in it being refactored into a merged RfC. It's not really important exactly where on the page the RfC is located. I may no speak for every RfC respondent, but I prefer "clean" RfCs that make reference (with links) to previous discussions, rather than burying an RfC in the middle of a discussion that has turned into a mire. The principle purpose of RfCs is to get a fresh set of eyes and minds on question, not for the same couple of parties who've been at each other's throats for a long time to brow-beat and lobby for "votes" for their "side". A clean RfC is usually a good step toward short-circuiting an ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. I'm not going to wade into the interpersonal dispute above, other than to observe that three reverts documented by Dane2007, followed by a fourth, seems to be a WP:3RR problem. They're not even just within the same day, they barely span more than an hour and a half.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• If only it were true. Could you provide a diff of the fourth revert that you've claimed? – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. - From WP:3RR. Not sure that 3RR applies but definitely toeing the line. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  He did reverse his third revert so I'm not sure there is an issue here that requires admin attention. As an aside I'm not even sure your close is valid anyway: if you close a discussion you need to clearly indicate whether a consensus has been reached or not. If you don't feel it has then the close summary should clearly state "No consensus". As it stands you haven't actually closed the discussion, you've just put a box around it and started a new discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:CLOSE and my closure appears to be correct according to that policy. The closure appropriately noted the status and provided a result indicating where the RfC is. Since the issue was not determined here, there was no need to call out "No consensus" as the status was stating it was closed to gain consensus. I could be wrong or misinterpreting that policy though. Can an admin clarify if I interpreted that right? -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A "close" determines the level of consensus achieved in a discussion and you have not actually done that. How do we know if an RFC is even needed if the previous discussion was not analyzed for any prevailing arguments? If I had closed that discussion I would have summarized the key arguments and explained why I thought consensus had or had not been achieved. I also wouldn't have started an RFC either, and I would have left it to the opposing parties to decide how they wanted to proceed based on the close. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I did review the entire contents of the discussion. I determined based on the contents of the discussion as well as the original ANI that a closure and move to RfC was an appropriate and necessary action to get outside opinion and comments as the discussion was becoming disruptive and irrelevant due to accusations of WP:OWN among others.

In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. - WP:CLOSE; Granted I am not an administrator and I was simply looking to be bold and move the ball along, there isn't an explicit restriction on a non-administrator closure for that discussion. I believe that all of my good faith actions today complied with WP:CLOSE and WP:RFC. I will drop the stick here regarding this closure action and await administrator comment. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you acknowledge I have not broken 3RR, despite the untrue accusation made by another editor. Yes, you were bold in your close, as you are allowed to be, but there was nothing to stop me reverting that close either, as I felt it was inappropriate. Why you felt the need to edit war is beyond me, but I am glad you have finally decided to drop the stick. All that is needed is for mcandlish to acknowledge his accusation of breaching 3RR was not an adequate reflection of the truth. Time to do something useful - which is never the case of anything brought to this particular peanut gallery. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious article creations - All new accounts creating pages about Australian academics

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

---

Was looking through the New Pages feed and saw a bunch of new pages created by new accounts. All pages are about Australian academics, all of whom fail WP:PROF from what I can tell. All users have only edited on the pages they created. All pages created today. Below is at list:

Will continue to look for more articles/accounts. Will notify all users linked here momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And I thought it was just me. Some of them are better sourced than others.--Savonneux (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, some are better quality (in terms of Wiki standards) than others too. But the pattern seems rather ... suspicious. I went back to 0:00 UTC on the NewPagesFeed and this is all I found. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's one—Glenn Martin-Mackay—which seems to be about a graduate student, and is definitely a prank of sorts. That's the only exception to the 'academics of dubious notability' rule, however, so far as I can see. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glenn Martin-Mackay doesn't fit the pattern and I've just speedied it, it seems to be a joke. For the others, is there an editathon gone awry? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that one. Was just collecting ones that were about Australian academics and made by new accounts. Thanks for speedying it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, looking at the creation dates, which span just over three weeks, coupled with the fact that all of these articles were created today, I'm not too sure about the editathon. EvergreenFir, I've taken the liberty of adding the creation date for Kazoo1975. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I added Kazoo when I saw my CSD in log. >.> I think it's the only account that's protested a speedy, I replied to them on the article talkpage--Savonneux (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A responsive/interactive new editor? That's a possible hook for asking (gently and with massive GF obviously) about the larger situation here. I suspect a class based on the timeline. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not much of an editathon person, but isn't that the usual advice - people are asked to create an account in advance and then they all get together to do the actual editing? The articles are all women and mostly (all?) scientists - a common topic for outreach type events. I suspect an editathon or a class that hasn't been organized too well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found the reason, from Susan_Neuhaus I found a page and a catagory --> Wikibomb2016

“ The Women in STEM Wikibomb is a joint event between Microsoft South Australia and the Office for Women to increase the number of Wikipedia pages on Australian women who have contributed to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Held during National Science Week, the Women in STEM Wikibomb aims to raise the profile of women in STEM, increase women's contributions to Wikipedia and provide technical skills and experience to participants.

”

(Is editing wikipedia a technical skill? Can I put it on my resume? :O )--Savonneux (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Savonneux: Wonderful sleuthing! That fits the bill pretty well (all women scientists, all in Australia, all STEM). Happy to see that my suspicions were incorrect and that this appears to be good-faith editing. I'll post some welcomes on the user pages and add some comments about article creation and WP:PROF. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Made sure all editors had a welcome template, added a section after the ANI notice welcoming them and offering to answer questions, and added a Tea House Invite. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Meanwhile, I'll gear up to CSD everything they've done and crush their spirits utterly. EEng 07:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A similar case was mentioned on a noticeboard in 2014, and the home page was Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb. Possibly Wikibomb2016 was intended to be similar, that is, in the Wikipedia namespace. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir for the welcomes to them all. EEng's spirit-destruction festival aside, it would be great if there was a way to encourage editing drives like this to focus more on expanding existing articles, rather than creating new ones and risking the usual GNG issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've declined a couple of these speedies. Some of the others look notable, or at least sufficiently borderline to merit AfD, to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I kept Barbara Jane Howlett, but it was 90% copyvio.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kerry Raymond is an editor who might have some clues who is behind this, I believe they've worked in this area before. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the Wikibomb in 2014, but know nothing of this 2016 one. But between the two, there have been at least a couple of other "wikibombs" (which seems to be have acquired the meaning here in Oz of an edit-a-thon to add more women to Wikipedia). Based on my experience with these events, they are always good faith and usually not a problem in terms of notability (although the citations might not be there initially to meet GNG). I don't think you need to speedily delete them - just prompt them to add the citations. Copyvio does tend to be an issue. Unfortunately in Australian university circles, bios from university websites are routinely copied for a range of purposes, which leads academics to (wrongly) assume that they can put this content onto Wikipedia too. When challenged, the usual response is "but the university doesn't mind" (which in my years working at Australian universities is entirely true, but nonetheless the university website is tagged as copyright usually in the footer of every page). Euryalus, the purpose of these events is to try to redress the imbalance in coverage of women on Wikipedia, so they are always going to create new articles rather than expand existing articles. When Wikimedia Australia becomes aware of such events, we try to get an experienced Wikipedian involved if we can, but it can often by very last minute or not at all depending on if/when we hear about them. In this case, I guess we didn't hear about it since I didn't see any call go out for volunteers to assist. Kerry (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Kerry Raymond: thanks for the ping - I think the Wikibombs are a great idea and I agree that anything that broadens coverage is worth encouraging. I suppose my point is there is space for work on article depth as well as breadth. Plenty of pre-existing articles on women, including of women academics, are still stubs and could do with concerted editing campaigns of their own. They'd also be more likely to survive the CSD attrition that follows new article editathons. But just an opinion, whatever works best in attracting new editors and addressing the gap in article coverage for prominent women. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WMAU wasnt aware of any events in South Australia, we will contact the group to help them in address the issues raised here and assist them in running successful such events in the future. As suggestion for editors here if come across these events suggest that you try contacting the local Affiliate or even post to project notice board for the country as this may help you resolve what is going on and also remind people of WP:BITE Gnangarra 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If someone can find someone involved in the actual project (should we move Wikibomb2016 to Wikipedia space?) I'd suggest that the new editors consider moving the problematic pages to draftspace (I hate that AFD is kinda of the way to do it) and then otherwise encourage them otherwise. We don't want to discourage new editors but point out that the page the way it is currently written is not in line with what's appropriate so there is WP:AFC and other processes to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've started a Requested Moves discussion to establish a consensus on what should be done with the page. Please see Talk:Wikibomb2016 for the discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps tt wouldnt hurt to ask at the Australian noticeboard just in case an Australian editor other than Kerry might know something about what was going on? Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians notice board JarrahTree 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) With all the talk about creating articles on women scientists, we should not be surprised if people actually go ahead and do so. (b) Just looking at the first two - both seem like they pass WP:PROF reasonably easily: Susan Wijffels has an h-index of about 38; Elizabeth Truswell is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. StAnselm (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: It's often worth looking on social media when you see something like this. I remember some months ago seeing a pile of articles very like this - for a second I wondered if I was dealing with sockpuppets but I quickly found references on Twitter to an editathon at an astronomy conference. But this illustrates why it's a good idea to do this kind of event properly and ask users to put a mention of it on their user pages. (One disappointing thing I've sometimes seen with constructive but very low-knowledge/confidence accounts is that the second they get any sense that they're not doing things perfectly right they abandon the account and switch to an IP or another account, so they can look like an obvious sock even if their behaviour isn't actually in bad faith. Hard to know what to do with those.) Blythwood (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - to further this discussion, I'm going to ping @Salamanda14:, who created the article on the Wikibomb event, @Janstrugnell:, who I believe may have been involved in organising it, and @Adam (Wiki Ed): who I know manages some editathons for Wikimedia.
  I have to say, a superficial examination suggests that this event did a terrible job of supporting and training the people at it! I see all the classic mistakes: pages on non-notable people, simple copying and pasting of faculty biographies, failure to keep articles short (why don't we have a guideline to keep Wikipedia articles created at an editathon to under six sentences?), listing literally every article the subject has ever published, obvious mistakes like uncapitalised names, articles posted to article space without being finished, not telling the editors involved to put on their profile that they're at an editathon project, not very experienced and might need some help. And - yes - speedying/prodding of articles on potentially notable people rather than trying to fix them or asking the author if they can. This is exactly the kind of failure to support new editors that leaves people who might be very helpful contributors running away screaming and builds unhelpful stereotypes like this. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is this is the WikiBomb being conducted by a group looking to raise the profile of female arctic scientists, which I heard about on a podcast earlier this week? Guy (Help!) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Folks, there are already guidelines at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, although I would comment they are highly idealised - e.g. one experienced Wikipedian per newbie! (where do you find so many volunteers?!). But these events are not usually organised by experienced Wikipedians and it doesn't occur to them to involve any experienced wikipedians and hence they will not know of any such guidelines. And why should they think differently? It clearly says on our main page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; there's no suggestion that you might want your hand held in the process, that there's a MoS, or policies etc on our main page. These people are doing what they believe Wikipedia welcomes them to do: hop in and add content. It might be more useful to have a set of guidelines for the community to follow if they suspect such an event is taking place, so the reaction is efficient and effective, e.g. where to notify that such an event appears to be taking place (such as the listi on the how-to-run page). Perhaps we could have a template {{currentevent}}, e.g. that is added to the articles suspected of being part of a cwhurrent event of this nature (dated obviously), again to alert the community as to what they are dealing with. The discussion above shows that a number of people duplicated effort in detecting the event, wasted time checking for sockpuppeting, that people responded in different ways to the content being created, that relevant projects were not notified etc. Let's think in terms of how to respond to events in ways that is efficient for the community and mindful of WP:NOBITE. Kerry (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree in principle, but I'm at a loss for a practical solution. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

People (us?) have figured out how to make articles and what have you without having our hands held. When you let your newly formed articles run free in the wild some of them are going to get eaten. This is the natural process. Finding solutions to non problems is one of the things you list as a problem.--Savonneux (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• As I see it, what matters most is that almost all these people are clearly notable (there was one article on a grad student, which is the one that is deleted, but that would have been someone not doing things right. ) This is considerably better results than some such editathons. But most of them are mostly not aware of WP:PROF.c ( talk ) 00:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I was involved in starting the wikibomb - all the people who have created pages on women in STEM were volunteers and many may have been new users. They were created in good faith and as you can imagine it is hard to get through to a large group the importance of appropriate citing and creating correct articles even though I had asked them all to undertake the relevant tutorials and provided them with instructions from Wikimedia. I have not had time to check through the articles created but will do so over the next few days salamanda14

• @Salamanda14: - Can you post the list of contributors and the pages they created? Also, I think that people were discussing moving the Wikibomb2016 article to a Wikipedia project page like this one so the details of it can be logged properly in future. Blythwood (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some of these appear to be quite simple articles, but that is an argument to tag them for improvement, not to delete them. As others have noted, perhaps we need to provide better guidance for 1) new editors and 2) people interested in running Wikibombs and Editathons with new potential contributors. We also need to learn to be more civil and Assume Good Faith. It can be surprisingly difficult to demonstrate wikinotability of scientists compared to how easy it is for sportspeople and politicians. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • First, I suggest create templates like Template:Punjab editathon 2016 and tag the talk pages as a temporary measure so we know which are new pages created with a little purpose behind them. When thing is done, listify the pages and delete the tag (relevant CSD discussion here). I think the best way to handle these is for the problematic ones (if they are) to be tagged on the talk page for a possible move to draftspace. It does not affect the front side, it allows for some time (a week is not CSD) and it's not as nasty as having a AFD blasted on the page. We have yet to build a single real guideline that admits that we do have a middle ground here. For projects, I'd suggest they start as drafts and move to main as the suggested method (the experienced person or the leader take the reins) and tell them quite simply "look, you are a new editor here, people make drafts all the time, use this to both learn how to edit and to work out the basics as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See also the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability re systemic bias. The above seems to be an attempt to counter such, apparently not consciously ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blythwood No this is not me, this is our initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR_2016 ! I don't know anything about the one you are writing about. Janstrugnell (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think this discussion has probably achieved all it's likely to, so it can probably be closed. Most or all of the contributors have been contacted with things like Teahouse invites. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)

Persistent incivility by User:DionysosProteus at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, in the form of: refusing to give details[12][13][14] about sources that the user claimed to possess[15], and which would help substantiate the user's claims, even after several requests[16][17][18]; responding to requests with ridicule ("these idiocies",[19] "this idiotic behaviour" and "nonsense"[20]); and various forms of condescension ("Try not to be stupid about it",[21] "use your head",[22] "get a grip"[23]).

After a message was left at user's talk page pointing to Wikipedia's civility policy and emphasizing the need to cooperate with other editors[24] (later amended[25]), user wrote a rambling message on the article talk page where the dispute originated, dismissive of the concerns I raised there, in which I personally was accused of various forms of impropriety ("you have belabored so preposterously", "little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article") as well as having my mental state questioned ("you were confused").[26] Further edits on user's talk page included personal taunting in an edit summary ("what is wrong with you?"[27]) and the inability or refusal to "get the point" about fragmented talk page discussions,[28] after a message was posted there pointing to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines.[29] —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[30][31] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Holy pedantic waste of volunteer time, folks. I honestly can't imagine a more trivial content issue than this to get bent out of shape over--and bear in mind that I have a formal background in comparative linguistics, so I'm used to parsing incredibly minute aspects of orthography. You both seem like contributors who have generally internalized the values of this project, so I think you ought to both be a little embarrassed that you couldn't iron this out between you without allowing things to blow up like this.

DP, I do understand your vexation here--you are absolutely right that MoS governs the relevant content question here and that CocountPorkPie's redundant comments were off-base and would likely have exhausted most similarly-situated veteran editors. That said, comments like "try not to be stupid" are really never appropriate on this project, frustration not withstanding--and you used them repeatedly in that thread, including fairly early into the discussion, which really is a civility issue.

Coconut, DP is correct insofar as you don't seem to be doing due diligence in familiarizing yourself with the appropriate guidelines here. This is a style issue, and governed by our Manual of Style, as the primary working document reflecting WP community consensus on matters of grammar, spelling, and syntax. He doesn't need to provide additional sourcing and context to support a position that is already enshrined in that document. If you feel this guideline is an inappropriate approach to the matter, then you should take it to the MoS talk page, which is the appropriate space for discussing a change to that community consensus. Meanwhile, while DP's comments were undoubtedly WP:BITE-ish, they don't really rise to the level likely to justify a sanction, and bringing this little dispute here, before you attempted WP:RfC or a third opinion is borderline disruptive.

Honestly guys, getting this unhinged over the placement of a couple of possessive apostrophes and affixes, the difference of which not a single one of our readers was likely to be affected by in any significant way, reflects a misplacement of editorial priorities regarding the work you could both be doing with your time and knowledge sets. I suggest you both WP:Drop the stick on this one, because while the debate is at the moment just a little petty, if it goes much further, it's going to start to become genuinely disruptive and I don't think either of you will come out of the matter looking great. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not necessary for both sides to walk away. But whichever one does walk away, allowing the other side to have its way on this meaningless question, will be the better editor -- and others will know it. EEng 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, let’s not pretend that this is a single incident that stands alone — it is a larger problem. (As has been indicated above in this discussion.) Coconutporkpie has opened multiple discussions on the Ajax (play) talk page alone. They are equally a waste of time. Then he discusses related issues on other talk pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, similarly wasting other editor’s time in the midsts of long grindingly inane discussions. (An example is buried somewhere in a discussion on Template talk:According to whom. DP at one point (earlier on the Ajax page) stepped in and helped to resolve one of these inane things, and deserves credit. You can’t really fault an editor for answering a question on a talk page, and then another, and another, but at a certain point you begin to realize you have been drawn in, and you are trapped into being impolite yourself by ignoring him — and then he hounds you with accusations for ignoring him. (As he did to me earlier on the Ajax (play) talk page.) He is devoted to wasting the time of many editors who are, after all, volunteers and could be doing other things. He is a form of troll known as a sea lion. Many editors, myself included, are guilty of taking the bait. Clockchime (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:143.159.18.55 mass "clean up" of others' comments on talk pages

See Special:Contributions/143.159.18.55. Per WP:TPO, The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Examples include [32], [33], [34]. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace". And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.

For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.

And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!

You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators! Best regards. 143.159.18.55 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you mass changing project importance ratings? especially to go from "Top" importance to "Low". Are you working alongside these projects or are you arbitrarily changing their banners to suit your own measures of importance? also you've prevented the bots from archiving at least one talk page. Your very mild typo changes and spaces and apparently mild reformatting doesn't strike me as overly problematic (I struck my typo changes and spaces comment for two reasons, 1. No actual typo changes that I could see in terms of editors comments and 2. If there were, these are recommended against and should be stopped at an editors request). I think it's more the en-masse number of changes in a single edit that has caught the attention of another editor. Perhaps just accept the crude and unsightly format of comments that sometimes appear on talk pages and leave the headers as they are, its not an article and thus doesn't need to be subjected to MOS in such detail. Otherwise fixing links and those sorts of things, eh, it's not against any guidelines or policies that I know of, but, it's also not supported by any either. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC

Your claim	My response
Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace".	Your edits are so extensive that it's difficult to verify that your edit summary is accurate. And no matter how you try to spin it, making extensive edits to others' comments looks suspicious and is highly likely to start disputes. Additionally, a WikiProject non-member changing the WikiProject assessments is also highly likely to start disputes.
And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.	Again, your edits are so extensive that it would take quite a bit of time and effort to do this for the volume of articles that you've modified. There is plenty of constructive work to do other than modify others' comments on talk pages and reprioritize WikiProject work to suit your personal taste.
For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.	No reasonable person would interpret WP:TPO to allow such edits to dozens of articles with no end in sight. Even if it isn't to obscure vandalism, it's still highly likely to spark disputes and you really should not continue to do it.
And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!	I think you would be alone in your complaint. "+ani" is something that 99.9% of editors would be able to figure out given the notice mentions "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Additionally, it wasn't a series of intricate modifications of others' comments on dozens of talk pages performed in a way that would take several minutes per article to verify hadn't changed their meaning.
You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators!	Not if it looks like high-volume vandalism that then somebody's got to clean up. In fact, I'd recommend a block if such editing continues.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You should look more closely. The removal of empty paragraphs gives the illusion that huge changes have taken place, where in fact they quite minor. Try ctrl-f and see how much is actualy missing. Alright, my judgement was correct, now as to the complaint. The simplest resolution here, and, the most appropriate one is for the IP to cease and desist editing talk pages to improve format. It may make it look slightly better but it does indeed mean that an editor needs to go through and check that no vandalism has been intentionally hidden. Those edits are highly likely to be reverted on the spot by an editor on the grounds that it appears to be vandalism. Now, good faith/bad faith. Check at least one of the edits yourself and try to identify anything inappropriate, otherwise, assume good faith and let it go. If you see it continue and feel it may be bordering on the disruptive ping the IP editor and request that they stop (or slow down) and give a good reason for it; such as it bordering on disruptive editing. Finally, if that fails, then bring it to AN/I and have the admins look at it. The only unusual thing I saw in the edits was that they had changed the importance ratings for several wikiprojects, unless you edit for them or are in some way involved with them, don't just go around arbitrarily changing their settings. That's their choice, not somebody elses. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, I've gone ahead and completed partial reverts of the IP editors edits. The only portions I have reverted are the importance ratings that each article has as those are selected by the Wikiproject as they see fit. Other than that, I haven't identified anything else in need of reversion. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye75

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

---

Hawkeye75 is clearly NOTHERE and needs to be banned. They began their wiki-tenure with personal attacks and edit warring. Although warned and blocked for both, they continue their problematic behavior, particularly edit-warring rather than discussion, after each block. They fundamentally do not understand BRD and refuse to participate in finding consensus. They have filed meritless and vindictive admin noticeboard reports. They also have a history of claiming they have begun nonexistent talk-page discussions to avoid the perception of edit-warring. A cursory review of this user's contributions and talk-page history shows that multiple editors have warned this user to change their ways, but they continue to editwar. A previous blocking administrator directed my concerns here due to Hawkeye75's claims of bias. Additionally, they have repeatedly violated the non-free content criteria and edit-warred to keep their preferred NFCC-violating images in articles, in spite of being warned and asked by multiple editors to stop.

Pages where this user has and continues to edit war, or revert and ignore BRD requests:

• Napa Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Infobox Disney resort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Bug's Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Park (Paris) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Cars Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - First off, that single personal attack was already dealt with as I got a 3 day block. Second, the admin noticeboard report was not meritless, it was just posted on the wrong section. Third, when you say I have a history of making non-existant talk page discussions you only give 1 example (which isn't true). History is more than one. My edit on the page was at 12:11, August 7, 2016 (UTC) and than I posted a welcome template on your talkpage 3 minutes late (here). I'm not sure what your accusing me of here since most of this stuff happened before my block and I have learnt from my mistakes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Second Comment - Your list of my "faults" is invalid. The first 4 resulted well before the block. Disneyland Railroad is an attraction, so it doesn't deserve a "train" infobox. GOG Mission Breakout - my photo was more clear (but no way to prove since it have been speedy deleted). Roger Rabit Car Toon Spin- it's fairly obvious that a 3 word list is A, B and C instead of A and B and C. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue is not your justifications for your edits, but the fact that you continually revert pages to your preferred version instead of opening discussion after being reverted. That is not how Wikipedia works. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, may I ask why you would be posting a "welcome template" on the talk page of an editor who has been editing since 2005? That's not 3 minutes late, that's more than a decade late. MPS1992 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see enough to justify another block yet, let alone a ban. Having reviewed the edits since their block, there's some low-level problematic stuff and what seems to be a good faith competence issue regarding image copyrights, but I can't justify blocking from that. Hawkeye75, would you care to explain your thought process for this edit? ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Their post-block edits show either no understanding or active ignorance of BRD. Even after explicitly being asked to initiate discussion ([35] [36]), they ignore and instead continue to editwar. Either way, they show no sign of understanding the fundamentals of finding consensus and cooperatively editing. See particularly their post-block edits at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout!, Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin, and Disneyland Railroad. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that their post-block editing at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! violated 3RR: [37], [38], [39]. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs)

@Iridescent: Yes, I was just mentioning how kind James was for giving Anna the barnstar. Anna has been a helpful admin. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@James Allison: All my edits are good faith. All those edits were contributing to the article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the issue. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I again point you to guides on edit warring and consensus. At some point, competence is required. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• From my outside perspective I think that Iridescent has nailed it as good faith edits with some lower level problematic stuff. I would agree with James Allison that Hawkeye75 is exhibiting some lack of cooperative editing and issues understanding consensus. I think the key takeaway out of this is that Hawkeye needs to review WP:CONSENSUS and utilize talk pages more for content disputes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - John from Idegon claimed I "edited" James's comment when all I did was fix the layout. James just broke WP:REDACT by editing his original comment when I had already replied. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't see anywhere near enough for a site ban or a block here. I think this is an editor who is (for lack of a better term) salvageable (don't take it as an insult). These seem to be Good Faith Edits. They do need to work a bit on following WP:CONSENSUS but this doesn't reach the threshold for what I'd consider for "clearly NOTHERE". The thing is they are here to contribute. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)- I am having mixed thoughts about this proposal. Although I would agree with Cameron above that there is potential for the editor in question to BECOME an editor in good standing eventually, I have a problem with edits such as this and the response to the question put forth by iridescent above which is in no way indicated in the dialogue between Anna and Hawkeye75 which can be seen here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong support banning Hawkeye75 The damage to volunteer contributor goodwill caused by this disruptive user greatly outweighs whatever paltry contributions he might make. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your text. I'm not sure if it breaks WP:MANUAL, but it's really hard to read. Also, I don't think it's very civil to call my edits "paltry", as I have made contributions to help Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're doing yourself no favors with comments like this. That sentence is perfectly acceptable and you know it. As to your contributions, yes, you've made some. It's the quality of the edits that we're discussing, and their relationship to the problems you're causing for other editors. I think your intentions are good, but you really need to tone down the confrontational attitude. Katie^talk 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I had a moment of confusion when I saw this report because the reported user's name is way too close to that of User:Hawkeye7, who has been here for 11 years. I would suggest that a username change be made. To the crux of the matter, I would suggest that Hawkeye75 be warned they are skating on very thin ice. 3 blocks within a month of starting is not good. For now, I counsel to apply a little more WP:ROPE before enacting anything permanent. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have only had 1 block. I had 1 for 24 hours, than another 1 was added on during that. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Applying rope sounds like committing suicide... -- Mentifisto 11:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this and was about to wade in in defence of Hawkeye7 a long term contributor until I read user blackmanes comment about the near identical user name, I suggest that if this user is to continue they be asked to change their user name to something that doesnt conflict. Gnangarra 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - I too thought this was Hawkeye7 and came here to their defence, 75 should rename themselves as it's clearly causing confusion, That aside I don't see any behaviour that warrants a block or ban ... yet!, They should be strongly warned and should now know they're on very thin ice here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Suggestion Here is an analysis for Hawkeye75. Out of 457 edits they have made exactly 8 to talk pages. I think the Hawkeye75 will be a great contributor once they learn the ropes here and begin to collaborate with the community. I propose that Hawkeye75 be restricted to achieving consensus for all edit they make on the talk page of an article before making any edits to the mainspace for three months, and that they adhere to the bold, revert, discuss cycle at all times.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the user's history of edit-warring, I would second this proposal as the very least that should be done. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure about this BRD stuff. Who should be the first one to start a section on an article's talk page? Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye75: you really want to be sure of it to succeed. Strictly speaking, in the BRD cycle, the person who made the original bold edit should be the one to justify their edits on the talk page. In the best case scenario, a person reverting would use the talk page, if the reasons for reverting are nuanced.--Adam in MO Talk 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You know, I have never seen an editor with less than 500 edits create dialog such as you will find on his talk page with Anna Frodesiak or on NeilN's talk page and go on to succeed. His incessant Wikilawyering, mostly incorrectly such as his comment above regarding REDACT, which was not on point at all, his blatant incivility which he received one of his two blocks for (referring to an openly gay male editor as she and then it) and his general DICK attitude (here, for example) lead me to one conclusion. This is a person my father would have described as a "legend in his own mind". And they never ever succeed in a collaborative process such as Wikipedia. AGF is not a suicide pact. IMO, wasting productive editor's time with infinite time sinks such as this fella is far more damaging to the project than any value to be gained by keeping him around until the time comes that he screws the pooch so badly we have no choice left but an indef. Obviously, YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not in the same place you are John, but I am moving in your direction. It doesn't seem that a consensus to ban is growing. I'd think if we are going to let this go one that we should shorten the rope.--Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how this is civil? I just want this to be resolved and I got personally attacked. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, there are at least three admins participating in this thread. If you had been personally attacked, one would have noticed and responded. You are not being attacked, you are being critiqued, with evidence illustrating it. Several have argued not to indef you, but not one person has stated that there is any fault in the evidence presented, nor has anyone said the conclusions editors have drawn were incorrect. The consensus is that you should be given another chance, not that your behavior has been acceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Source:WP:WIAPA) Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia:Mentorship --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think the name is an issue, per those who have commented on it, especially if 75 is going to be showing up at AN/I (were they laboring away quietly in some obscure corner of the pedia, there would be less of an issue) Advise a soft block on account of the username.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should I get a block for my name? When I created my account I didn't even know anyone's username. I tried "Hawkeye7" and it was already taken. Besides I haven't even come across Hawkeye7 while editing yet. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What soft block means is that you would have to pick another username because we try to avoid usernames that are confusing, you would not be prevented from editing once you registered a new username. That there is a risk of confusion is evidenced by the number of editors who came here under the impression it was Hawkeye7. I won't insist, but be aware that people may assume you are Hawkeye7, possibly using an alternate account.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support a softblock requiring selection of another username. Hawkeye7 is a highly productive editor who has nearly 10 years of useful contributions here. That editor does not deserve to be confused with an argumentative new editor deeply involved in problematic behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What Cullen328 said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I too was confused by this name issue, having seen Hawkeye7's contributions to Wikipedia I struggled to understand the description of "paltry". I think that a username change is a must here as it borders on impersonation, plausibly unintentional, but, sufficiently problematic as to be actionable. Right now I can suggest only that a name change is required and that a WP:NOTHERE block is far too much. Mentorship sounds like a good idea, if issues persist then it may be appropriate to take stricter action such as a longer/long block. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328 and Davey2010, et al - I suggested exactly that a while ago! I completely concur that a name change is in order if not a WP:NOTHERE block. Thanks, Zero^talk 14:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with this particular forum, and what I am about to mention may already be known by the admins involved in this discussion, but I have had some past interactions Hawkeye75 that I did not appreciate, it started with the "Social media note" discussion that I started on the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror talk page. I brought this to Anna Frodesiak's attention, and she gave me advice on how the handle the situation. Soon after, Hawkeye75 posted an apology on my talk page, but the next day, he made an edit to it, and instead gave me this response; [40]. Anna responded to that here; [41]. It is important to note that this incident occurred before he received any blocks. Hopefully he has learned by now that this past behavior is not proper. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• The editor continues to demonstrate their utter inability to work cooperatively. I believe they have been given more than enough rope. Enough is enough. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you mean this, James? John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was attempting to refer to that entire conversation. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi James, that was already brought up by John from Idegon who also called me a "dick". Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
        • JfI didn't call you a dick, @Hawkeye75: . Such mischaracterizations could easily lead folks to doubt your intent. Folks have taken their time to lend you valuable advice on how to avoid problems; you really should begin to listen. Tiderolls 12:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I know i'll be probably ignored because you're busy ganging up on Hawkeye75 but, being my point of view totally neutral (i've just happened to stumble upon this discussion), saying that someone is acting with a "general dick attitude", as John from Idegon did, is the same as basically saying he's a dick, otherwise i could say that you're all acting like assholes and this would be fine. The user did some mistakes, for sure, but a lot of those mistakes were did in the past and he already paid for his actions. Anyway, his past or current behavior shouldn't be an excuse to come up with insults.
          • (Non-administrator comment) What Tide said above. There is a pile of editor experience involved in this thread and should 75 not begin to heed the advice given here, I'm afraid his career on this project will unfortunately be rather short. BTW, I also agree with the soft block re:Username. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, suggestion for moving forward: I've had interactions with the editor, most of which have been asking both themselves and another editor to stop bickering (1, 2). I believe 75 gets agitated easily, but this isn't helped by other editors responding in an equally combative manner. I agree with some of the suggestions above regarding gaining concensus for anything other than trivial edits to articles, and would like to see an editor agree to mentor 75. The idea of blocking at this time leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and guiding this editor should be our first step. Obviously, if 75 continues the above-mentioned negative behaviour, another block may be in order -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • But this ignores the "username" issue. I support Cullen328's suggestion for a softblock on the basis of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've included that in my suggestion on 75's talk page, thank you for reminding me IJBall -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No ban, no block The premise of the original proposal is preposterous and James Allison should, at the very least, be trouted for suggesting it. Bans occur when an editor has completely exhausted the patience of the community after multiple egregious offenses and no good faith is possible. Hawkeye75 is far from reaching that point, therefore, the non-AGF premise of banning and tone set for this report are out of line. I support mentoring as suggested by NeilN and support guidance per Samtar's comments above mine. Further, I say let him keep his username. There are plenty of similar usernames in Wikipedia. If experienced editors aren't distinguishing between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75, that's on them. What's more, if they aren't taking the time to notice the difference, then they probably need to slow down, take a breath, and pay more attention. Indeed, the sharks circling around this newbie editor need to be scattered. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, definite username change, and some editors here need a trouting; Actually, Winkelvi, you are absolutely right. This is why our editors are turned away, because, we the regulars are like sharks spotting a lonely sea lion and thinking that it's dinner time. If I may up the recommendation that you have given to be; the users proposing a ban or block (aside from the soft block for a name change which is relatively reasonable and mild by comparison) against the editor being trouted and reminded that our community is diminishing and not growing exponentially with fresh meat coming in by the bucket load. The assumption of bad faith by a few editors here is quite extraordinary. Yes, Hawkeye75 is floundering quite a bit and has responded sub-optimally and crassly (in some instances) to this thread, but, I don't think that everyone's realized that the response by a few editors here is equal to or even worse than that (not for the language or civility, but, for biting a new editor's head off for not understanding Wikipedia yet, as if we're all paragons of virtue who've never made a mistake in our lives). Also, as I mentioned in my last comment, I support NeilN's suggestion of mentorship as that would help keep 75 out of the shark infested waters. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I hate to disagree but this user's behaviour, especially towards Anna Frodesiak and MorbidEntree is past the point where AGF can be applied. I am not getting involved in a suicide pact. As such, this user does need hard blocking. Zero^talk 16:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I applaud you all trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but as Zero indicated, some of 75s behavior is destructive to the organization. Analogy. If a newer employee had a history of arguing with management and senior employees repeatedly even after warning, had sexualy harassed a coworker and gotten suspended for it, then upon return to work, blamed publicly the person they had harassed for the suspension, all the while continuing to argue with senior staff and management about any and everything, they would be terminated. NOT due to any legal issues, although those exist, but simply because an individual that behaves like that creates a toxic environment that drags the entire organization down. No we are not a company and editors are not employees, but don't you think we owe our fellow editors a less toxic environment? As I said above, I don't see a net positive in keeping people like this around. If he's arguing with Anna, one of the most understanding and patient admins we have, what makes you think mentorship is going to help. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. The least that should come out of this is mandated mentorship. John from Idegon (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm... to be blunt, John you're comparing sexual harassment to the behaviour of 75 here? are you serious? and if so, diffs please (or point me to it if it has already been posted) because that is one hell of an accusation to make, and I don't think its merely a part of the analogy as the rest of it is in line with the behaviour that I have seen (argumentative). I assume this is specifically regarding Anna Frodesiak, I haven't seen any diffs of serious misbehaviour on her talk page but will be taking a look at it (I assume that's where I'll find whatever it is you're referring to). Also, Zero, this isn't a suicide pact, if I had the evidence in front of me that had convinced me that this editor was not going to be a productive (or couldn't be a productive) member of the community, as is expected with WP:NOTHERE, then I would be advocating block. I'll remind you both that diffs are a necessity and not some vague attributions of misbehaviour. E.g. Sexual harassment with no evidence (if I've missed it point me to it) and also "especially" towards Anna Frodesiak, which I am inclined to believe, but, also MorbidEntree which is the first mention of them I've seen here with the exception of a single diff which indicates no violation of any policy honestly. Bickering in a mild form is not something that will draw my attention especially where the offending phrase is "cut it out" and "do something useful", a bit rude, but, not enough for a block. I haven't seen either of you post a diff that indicates WP:NOTHERE. I've seen a few diffs which are problematic, including a violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS where the editor has made false accusations with the intent of having another editor reprimanded. I would recommend a short block based on that alone if not for the rest of this thread. Bear in mind, this editor has had two blocks total; one of 24 hours that Anna Frodesiak upped to 8 days while the editor was blocked. As such, I am going to treat as a single extended block. As it stands, I see big bites being taken out of the editor for transgressions that I don't see as being on par with the punishment. You claim WP:NOTHERE, but, your diffs indicate WP:CIVIL. An issue yes, but, not the same one as is claimed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, that you are not referring to this as sexual harassment? it's a stupid thing to say, referring to a person as it, but, Anna Frodesiak came to the editor's talk page and threatened to block them because of the incorrect use of a gender pronoun that I don't think was made in bad faith per MorbidEntree themself saying so. I am honestly just seeing more WP:BITE the more I look. Hawkeye75 is tendentious and that's a problem, but, your responses (not literally meaning you two but in general) are not much better. Perhaps this has reached the point of serious frustration, but, I can't say based on what I've found or what has been posted that the blame lies entirely on Hawkeye75. Also, I'd like to add, Hawkeye75 stop quoting passages in policies you clearly don't understand. Especially not to admins and editors who have been here for years, it's not a good approach. If you have an issue with something an editor has said, bring it up and talk like a human not like a policy quoting machine. Person-person communication will get you far further than Machine-person communication will. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the pronoun issue may not have been an intentional personal attack, 75 had a history of making personal attacks at that point. The NPA block was justified even if the pronoun incident was not a personal attack. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of NOTHERE is in the diffs I've linked above. 75 refuses to engage in finding consensus, even after explicitly being asked to do so. I would again emphasize that 75 violated 3RR after being warned and blocked for edit warring. Further, 75's comments above show no understanding that edit-warring is unacceptable. I see no evidence that 75 understands that what they did was wrong and will change their ways. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, since my original comment this issue has spiraled even further. I still recommend that no block be imposed and am failing to see how Anna's proposal will work, it'll just isolate the editor further from the community. My AGF has, at this point, been stretched out too far as well. My apologies for wanting to trout editors chasing for a block, I am starting to see why it was requested in the first place, but, still stand by an indef being too trigger happy. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• No block or ban at this time I can imagine some confusion arising from the similarity between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75 - some have suggested a requirement that a rename be requested. If Hawkeye75 recognized that the concerns are valid, I would think they would welcome the thought of a rename, as a chance to start over without the baggage of the old name, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Hawkeye75 accepts that there is a problem. I hope Hawkeye75 will pause to think about the number of editors who have commented, not a single one of which has disagreed that the editing is problematic (the best that can be said is that some think a ban is premature), then voluntarily think about how best to move forward, which might include a request for a rename, might include a request for a mentor, might include a commitment to more (non-snarky) use of talk pages or some combination.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment So what options do we have here friends? We all agree that we have an editor needs some help. Hawkeye75 has left no indication here or elsewhere that they intend to take the suggestions from this thread or those on their talk page, to heart. Since the opening of this ANI they have reverted an admin action on an AN, accused a regular and an admin of socking, [42]left a trout-worthy warning on a admin's talk page, and has been combative to suggestions. So who is going to step up and be a mentor?--Adam in MO Talk 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something against me? You posted the comment of me telling an admin to not revert edits, but right after, I replied to the user claiming I didn't know he was an admin (which you never mentioned in your original comment) (and that you saw). I have already started making edits to articles and it's users like you who drive me away from Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I like to say something as a fairly new user. I've only been here 6 months. In those 6 months I did alot of reading on Wikipedia policies and looked for other Editors and Admins for input when I wasn't sure. I found the help, With that being said I have read everything here and alot of 75's actions are not only ban worthy but disrespectful. They have commented on another user talk page that I read in one of the references above [43] that they are 70, I find that very hard to believe, that they later deleted. From my stand point no one is stepping up to mentor for these simple facts,75 shows no signs of change, shows no sign they care about the name issue, they show no signs that they care about this ANI, and show no respect towards Admins. In closing if someone does step up then great, I hope it works but otherwise from what I see Ban is the only other option. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That was well before my first ban... Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when it happened, your clearly not 70 and it should have never happened to begin with, none of it should have. Your are not owning up to your issues. You can only use the I'm new or that was before my ban as an excuse for so long. Not to toot my own horn here but 6 months of editing with no bans, never been brought to ANI, and over 1000 edits. You have to want to listen and learn, it's as simple as that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should be bragging about 6 months of editing with no bans, that is quite common. This section of ANI is for after my ban, so anything before it has already been dealt with. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Last Comment/Reply This will be my last comment/reply on this. I'm very proud I haven't been banned or been brought to ANI in my first 6 months because I listened, learned, and asked for help from other Editors and Admins. I showed respect and treated others with such. I listened to their input whether I was wrong or right and I learned what is expected of editors. You've been here 7 1 month, so clearly it's not that common. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually his userpage box says 7 months but he's registered 7/13/2016 21:28. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction/clarification Anna Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mitigation

This whole thread is about whether he should be booted or given some ROPE. Booted, and Wikipedia sustains a loss. ROPE, I think we can all guess, would be suicide.

As for mentoring, I don't think it would work. Posts at his talk and this whole thread should have already spelled out the problem and provided sufficient guidance. If he doesn't get it by now, mentoring won't help. Plus, it would be a further investment of community resources even if somebody was willing, and nobody is willing.

The amount of resources wasted so far in terms of keystrokes and reads compared to his 214 mainspace edits puts Wikipedia in the red. I would love to see several thousand mainspace edits to put Wikipedia back in the black.

I suggest, considering that his mainspace edits are constructive, that he be restricted to the mainspace only, with 0RR. After a certain amount of good edits there, he would be free to govern himself as he sees fit, whether that is getting himself blocked for good, or seeing the light and becoming a non-disruptive member of the community. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse this proposal. If we are going to give rope, it should be as short as possible. -Adam in MO Talk 05:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support restriction I must have missed where that could be an option but I think Anna has proposed a very good option because wouldn't that be mentoring in a round about way?Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would support this proposal in the absence of consensus for a ban. However, I think this will only lead to a waste of time and resources. Even after many, many threads on Hawkeye's talk page and this entire discussion, they show no sign of being able to work collaboratively. They have continued their slow burn edit war at Napa Rose, and after being reverted multiple times at Shocker (hand gesture), they vindictively removed appropriate sourcing and made a meritless argument for deletion. Hawkey shows classic signs of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I am skeptical that they will be able to follow the proposed restriction. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good points, James. So, there are three paths here: block (definitely a loss to Wikipedia), ROPE (likely a bunch more good edits and eventual block after another huge waste of keystrokes in discussion), or temporary restricted editing (a shot at a win).

So, what do we have to lose by choosing the third? Sure, it may not work out, but Wikipedia has a chance to get back what it lost.

If we could just think of a way to see him editing without conflict, that would be great. His problem is interaction. He makes good, constructive edits. His English is fine. He knows his subjects. I suggest we define editing that would be purely constructive and absolutely non-controversial? Then, he can get started while pouring through all those policies and guidelines and start to understand that they are mostly there for us to govern ourselves rather than cite against others. After 2,000 edits, the editor is free to do as he wishes. Wikipedia is repaid and the future is win-win.

‎Hawkeye75, what do you think of all this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If James Allison has a problem with me, than he can interact ban me. It seems as if he is the only editor on here that doesn't want me to succeed. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are saying, Hawkeye75. What do you think of the idea of you editing articles without interacting with anyone on any page? No talk page posts. You just improve articles for a while and nothing more. I'm talking about you adding content to articles and not reverting if you are reverted. That sort of thing. What do you think about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Anna Frodesiak's suggestion but under the same rationale as James Allison's suggestion - by which I mean if there is no consensus for a block, as opposed to a community ban. I still think a name change would be ideal. As for the pun, Anna, thanks for the laugh first thing on a British morning. :-) EDITOR'S NOTE: I have moved to a full support on NeilN's proposal but I would support this in the event of a lack of consensus on the indef block proposal. Zero^talk 08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support as stated above, I'm all for anything which keeps 75 on Wikipedia and editing. They are a good editor in need of some guidance and a strong cup of tea to relax - thank you Anna for a reasonable proposal -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Removing above as the editor clearly can't be bothered to listen or take advice. We've all wasted too much time on this -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• 'Support as Anna has suggested above, but with a 3-month window for the restrictions and, hopefully, mentoring (if someone is willing to do so). After that, if they have not learned how to function according to policy, then WP:ROPE will play itself out. That said, if ROPE is the next progression, I don't think an indefinite block would be warranted, rather a three month block would be appropriate. Other than the possibility of frustration from affected editors, I see no harm in letting them come back after a three month block, rather, it's a way to try and work with them. Anything else (indef or ban) will likely promote a "return" (yes, that's a euphemism). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Striking the above - see comments in next section as to why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. If someone has trouble with the D in BRD, and a tendency to edit-war, I think the last thing we should do is to ban him or her from Talk pages; communication by edit-summary is awkward and rarely adequate. And how is mentoring supposed to work in mainspace? This situation would be much better addressed with a 0RR, 1RR or similar requirement to seek consensus. I would not oppose a temporary restriction from noticeboards, projectspace, or even other editors’ userspace, but cutting off all means of discussion is going too far, and can only exacerbate lone-wolf tendencies.—Odysseus1479 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Odysseus. Perhaps this would be a more workable restriction:

• For the next six months Hawkeye shall limit his editing to Article, Article talk and Draft space only.
• Exceptions to this would be help projects based in Wiki space such as Teahouse and mentoring projects, only for the purpose of seeking help at those projects and with the caution that their communication be devoid of snark and argument.
• Hawkeye75 is specifically banned from User talk for that period.
• 1RR restrictions shall apply.
• Hawkeye75 is encouraged to find a mentor.

That should actually be enforceable and useful to help him break his bad habitd. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it would earn him a ton of goodwill to realize that through no fault of his own, his username is somewhat problematic. Changing usernames is easy. WP:CHU is the place. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think anything involving interaction will lead to an indef within a short time. Patterns repeat themselves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The trick is to find a way he can make a couple of thousand edits without needing the talk pages. Keep it simple and brightline. We've all seen what a bunch of fuzzy restrictions like "...their communication be devoid of snark and argument..." lead to: the user starting to argue over definitions.

Curing him of any lone-wolf tendencies or interaction issues is a luxury. That ought to come after first considering Wikipedia's needs. Wikipedia took (and is taking) a hit in terms of resources. The first priority one is to get that back in edits. Then, if we can help him, fine.

Anyhow, since I last asked Hawkeye for his views, he has made four edits elsewhere. I hope he will respond soon. If he simply doesn't then what? ROPE, probably as there will likely be no consensus for an indefinite block. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think whoever has a problem with me can just interact ban me. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to those who supported this (and those who opposed too as your input was valuable). Considering 75's reluctance, and the overwhelming support for indef, I think this is now off the table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Recommend indef block

I believe I was one of the first to interact with Hawkeye75, welcoming them after receiving an email from them and I know my patience is exhausted. They'd rather play silly games with their user page [44] [45] rather than sensibly responding here. [46] Everything is going to be an argument with this editor (Exhibit A: their username), for little gain. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he won't even consider changing his username tells me everything I need to know. That very user name, combined with everything else about this editor, gives me a strong sense that we're all being trolled here. Support an indef – if NeilN thinks an editor is not worth the trouble, there's an almost certain likelihood that they aren't... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block I had hoped it wouldn't come to this but after my recent dealings with 75 on this very ANI and them saying nothing before their first ban mattered, as Neil said above I'm starting to think this is just a game for them and this is a big waste of time that needs to end. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block After reviewing all of the comments and interactions that happened after my post supporting giving this user rope, I am in support of an indef block. Every single thing becomes a giant issue with this user (ex. username) and instead of working collaboratively or towards a solution, the user constantly has excuses for their actions. I can assume good faith until it becomes evident that the user is not here to collaborate peacefully in building the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'll be editing my !vote for Anna's proposal shortly. Clearly giving this user any more rope now would be a waste of time. I did say with regards to Anna's proposal that a name change is in order. If he cannot do simply that then we have a problem - if someone called themselves Patient 0, I would ask them to change their name too and I would like to think an administrator would ask the same! That aside the playing around in user space as opposed to any article/AV work is definitely characteristic of WP:NOTHERE. Zero^talk 09:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Considering opposition to the mitigation plan, including 75's reluctance, and his most recent edits, I see no other way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support based on editor now imploding before our eyes. Ugh. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I honour the good-faith assumptions and newbie-friendliness of many users in the above discussion, but the way Hawkeye75 has, on this very page, squandered all attempts to help him and all good will speaks volumes. I have to agree with NeilN that "Everything is going to be an argument with this editor, for little gain". Wasting constructive editors' time and patience (our chief resources, they are!) for little gain is always the best reason for an indef in my book. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC).
• Support Any effort to help Hawkeye75 are useless without their participation. They have never shown any indication that they are interested in working with other editors. Bye Felicia.--Adam in MO Talk 14:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - consider my attempts to find a middle ground withdrawn. Back to where I was a week ago and thanks for catching up. John from Idegon (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support (above comments struck) - the editor clearly can't be bothered to reply here sensibly or listen to the advice others and myself have given them. They're no longer worth the community effort -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support and frankly, given how much of this has already been going on their user talk page, I would say remove talk page access off the bat. It seems almost certain that blocking them without removing talk page access will immediately result in an "I didn't do anything wrong, as you can clearly see if you read WP:ALPHABET and WP:SOUP correctly"-type unblock request. If they want to appeal the block and sincerely understand what went wrong, there are other ways of dealing with that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think that this is a good idea, Hijiri88. Hawkeye75 is known for wikilawyering and this would be a preventative measure as opposed to a punitive one for this reason. Zero^talk 16:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. I'm 50/50 on whether a block would have an effect on their attitude. They don't have a history of extensive blocks so I'm not sure that they will immediately become argumentative. I think there is still enough left to give them the benefit of the doubt.--Adam in MO Talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can I point out here (no comment yet on the case itself)- just for the record- that although indeed the editor hasn't commented here, he says he is in British Columbia; if that's the case, then his last edit was at c. 01:00 his time, and that it's currently 09:00 there. Ergo, our discussion has been taking place in the middle of the night. Can I suggest no hasty closure for a few hours, on this procedural. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Best of luck Well I guess there's no chance of revival. Hawkeye75 (talk) July 2016-August 2016. —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye75: There is always still a chance. But you refuse to participate in community discussion and address the community's concerns regarding your behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Recluctant support based on review of the ANI and ANEW threads, and the user's talk page. The rope has run out. GAB^gab 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose please reconsider your decision to give up on them so fast. We all make mistakes, some bigger and some smaller, but what matters most is that we learn from our mistakes and move forward. Mona778 (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support I had thought to err on the AGF side but fault for this entire fiasco can only be laid at Hawkeye75's feet. @Mona778:, there is certainly a time and place to make and learn from mistakes. The idea is to understand when a multitude of editors are pointing out a plethora of mistakes and think "hmm, maybe I am going about this the wrong way." What we have here is none of that; all there is, is argumentatum ad infinitum. Blackmane (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Improper moves by User:Nicole Sharp

• User:Nicole Sharp executed a number of improper and incorrectly executed moves this morning. She was cutting and pasting content rather than moving pages. I have instructed her to cease and desist here, and fixed one of her moves at Zaza-Gorani languages, but she did this a number of times. These should be fixed by someone with more time and patience than I have or by someone who is skilled at using bots. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear: I see that she performed a number of copy-and-paste moves which need to be reverted, but is it correct that the titles should indeed by hyphenated and not dashed?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Judging from Nicole Sharp's comment here it would seem she's overgeneralising one of the rules for the use of hyphens. She might not be aware of our manual of style section on n-dashes MOS:NDASH. The MOS doesn't say anything specific on the use in cases like Zaza-Gorani languages and it's probably open to interpretation but at least it gives some reasons to make the use of n-dashes here seem reasonable. Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the rest of the cut-and-paste moves from today. Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't personally care whether the titles have n-dashes or hyphens in language names (although User:Kwamikagami cares very much). The problem was the cut-and-paste method of moving articles. It's like Wikipedia Editing 101: Use the Move function, don't cut and paste. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I replied on my talkpage on the technical problem there: since both article titles already exist (a move was already executed with a redirect left behind), I can't move the page back to the original article title without the original article title's wikipage first being deleted by an admin. I can only copy and paste the wikicontent in those instances. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Nicole Sharp: Copy-paste moves kill the page history. Don't do that. If the move is completely non-controversial you might get the redirect deleted using WP:G6, or more generally you can list the move at WP:Requested moves. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Please see the current discussion at "user talk:Kwamikagami#hyphenation" (@Kwamikagami:) and "user talk:Nicole Sharp#Improper moves." Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (wikilinked above) and the Wikipedia entry for "Dash#Attributive compounds," as far as I can tell, the en dash is a correct usage for some language-family names (e.g. Trans–New Guinea, dashed) but not for all (e.g. Uralic-Yukaghir, hyphenated). However, if anyone has a citation for usage otherwise, I would defer to that. Most professional journals publish style guidelines for publication, so would probably just need to find a linguistic journal to confirm. Linguistic anthropology under the auspices of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) would be under the Chicago Manual of Style (the official stylebook for the AAA, which the Wikipedia article for "dash" mentions limits usage of dashes over hyphens). Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed a couple years ago. The en dash follows our MOS as well as several linguistic publications (those that bother with the difference at all, at least). Nicole mentions one of the uses of the dash, but there's also "Niger–Congo languages", which has the same rationale as "French–German border". — kwami (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [47], [48], [49], [50], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [51] [52] [53] [54]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.

3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.

4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.

5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [55] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."

6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [56]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...

@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?

Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--

I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
• https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299 Last Contrarian (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:

Main page: WP:FRINGE

"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"

Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.

You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [57]:

Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [58] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."

In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.

You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.

2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.

3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.

You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's nearing 3:30AM in India and I have to sleep. Will revisit this in about 18 hours. Hope admins take their time before coming to a decision. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit history: [59]. Do you see anything there that supports a ban? Or, does every single person who opposes Jobrot's stranglehold on the article (the guy has more edits [60] on the article than the next three editors combined, all of whom are inactive since forever) get banned even if reliable sources are used to provide a balance to the slanted claims? They way things stand at present, unless ten people gang up together (an unlikely event) to form a consensus in the opposite direction, Jobrot's version of events will be the de facto Wikipedia version as he seems to be omnipresent on Wikipedia. Anyone going against the status quo will be crushed by the consensus of 2 editors and 4 voters, reliable sources be damned. Last Contrarian (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your edit history is why people are going for a page/topic ban instead of a block: you do have a lot of good edits to stuff relating to India and Indian entertainment, but your foray into American politics has been problematic. In fact, the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic, combined with the drastic increase in loquaciousness, almost looks like a WP:COMPROMISED account. Were it not for this and this, I'd've called for a block on those grounds instead of explaining this. Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, which means you should stay away from contentious topics until you've learned to do so. You say you've been here "without ever encountering an admin" like that's a bad thing. That means you haven't engaged the community here, and it shows. While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month -- and that's in total, not taking into account that you've barely interacted with the community at all before this. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

the two year gap between your diverse Indian edits to your rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Every major article I have involved myself in is due to a singular interest in the subject matter. The articles on Satya (film), Chanakya (TV series) and Anurag Kashyap needed a lot of improvement. The one on the Tata Tapes controversy didn't exist till I created it.

While you appear to have done good work with India related topics, you've accomplished about as much in eight years as many editors accomplish in their first year and what some regulars accomplish in a month I guess you are used to articles and editors for which sources are available quite easily. The articles I worked on are India-specific and the number of easily accessible digital sources on the subject matter and time period (1980s-1990s) are very few. The only way you could perhaps make them better is by visiting newspaper morgues in some of the major Indian cities.

rather sudden and singular interest in this topic Not sudden at all. Here's my user page from 2008: [61]:

• atheist
• libertarian
• interested in politics
• believes in logic
• is opposed to online censorship

So my "suddenly" visiting the Cultural Marxism page should make sense given the context.

drastic increase in loquaciousness On Wikipedia, sure. Doesn't mean this is the only handle I use on the internet. Further, technical subjects or subjects with some basis to them don't require long-winded discussions. Only politics and philosophy do.

Your edit history does show that you've had almost no practice in forming consensus or collaborating as well, Consensus and collaboration work when the differences between editors are such that an agreement is possible. In case of controversial topics, they might work if others are willing to at least listen to you. I don't see it happening when it comes to this topic. When I raise a question regarding sentence construction, propositional logic and citations, and the only replies I get are those influenced by previous controversies or those simply voting for a position, what are the chances that a consensus based on substantive discussion would be arrived at?

In this instance, it's very easy to change the lede by using WP:INTEXT. But some editors seem to believe that the conspiracy theoretic position is so common, that in-text attribution is something that should be absolutely avoided. Last Contrarian (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT argues against you; sighting this as an example of what not to do: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars." - that's EXACTLY what you attempted with the lead: "Cultural Marxism in mainstream parlance is considered a conspiracy theory; but <insert name here> doesn't think it is!" WP:GEVAL WP:DEADHORSE WP:LISTEN WP:CONSENSUS. --Jobrot (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you misread my comments unintentionally or on purpose. This is what I said FOUR days back (see the talkpage):

What does "common usage" mean in this context? Who, exactly, "commonly refers" to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory? If it's the SPLC, then reword the sentence so that it states so explicitly. If it is left-wing academics, X, Y & Z who research right-wing movements, then use their names there. What we have here is the use of weasel words (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word) to make a claim appear larger than it actually is.

If I had done that myself, you would have still called it disruptive editing—or by claiming that WP:INTEXT is not necessary as the conspiracy theoretic view is universal—because you don't want the section's basic claim to change. I began adding Gottfried's claims BECAUSE the entire section is based on left-wing name-calling with right-wing primary sources only being used for WP:SYNTHESIS.

Your verbose comments don't lead anywhere, and are often designed to tire the reader, or worse, change the focus away from a particular topic. Your actions seem to be designed to push away editors who don't share your bias or world view. This makes it impossible for anyone to significantly edit the article without being obstructed by you. Anyone who doesn't enter the fray with preconceived notions will find the state of the article and your behavior unacceptable to say the very least. Here's User:N-HH (see talk page) who thinks the section suffers from lack of balance and misdirected emphasis. saying he's unwilling to enter the trenches:

The term goes beyond the Frankfurt School, and beyond the modern "conspiracy theory", so it shouldn't be a subsection on this page, or be focused on modern politics wherever it is. It's connected to this page, to US Culture war and to Critical theory, and there are overlaps, but is a discrete and substantive topic in its own right; a disambiguation page might help, but I think it needs more than that. That said, I don't have the time to invest in what would no doubt be an extended rerun of old debates which would probably end anyway with this unhappy compromise outcome all over again, or something similar. Plus this has slightly gone beyond the RfC ambit, so I'll leave it there.

That's on you, and editors like you who are unable to tolerate an NPOV tag on an obviously controversial section. Last Contrarian (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained multiple times that it's a) a conspiracy theory to relevant sources cited in the section, b) a theory about a conspiracy to the paleoconservative minority viewpoint, c) that the sighted source for the statement is talking about the mainstream/common usage as being a conspiracy theory and d) that there are multiple examples of it being talked about as a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media:

 The Guardian [62], Al Jazeera [63], Salon [64], Fair Observer [65], The New Matilda [66], ArtNet [67], Buzzfeed [68], The Huffington Post [69].

These reoccurring discussions you wish to have will always illicit this same response from me, each and every time, and User:N-HH was saying there wasn't enough left-wing ACADEMIC coverage of the original meaning; the polar opposite of your claim that there isn't enough paleoconservative coverage (even though it already makes up a substantial chunk of the current section); and User:N-HH was quickly able to understand that the section was specifically for the conspiracy theory version of the term (as is explained on the talk page) and to ascertain that I wasn't there to push a political agenda. Unlike yourself versus those horrible rabid left-wing editors. You're grasping at straws here and showing off your failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic/Page ban. Topic ban from Cultural Marxism would be the easiest to manage. I find specific page bans tend to lead to the editor having the same dispute about markedly similar content on a different page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• oppose page ban User:Last Contrarian is a long-standing Wiki editor since 2008. He arrived at the Cultural Marxism just a few days ago, made obviously good faith edits, and appropriately withdrew to an RFC when it became clear that his edits were opposed by two editors. Jobrot is too quick to declare consensus on that RFC, it's only been open three days. There is also an interesting discussion developing at Fringe theories noticeboard. Jobrot argues for guilt by association: i.e. other editors have 'been down this path' (whatever that means), therefore Lost Contrarian must be stopped now? Doesn't make sense. Nothing about his behavior would merit any sort of ban. Also oppose any boomerang, Jobrot's expertise is much appreciated. JerryRussell (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support re: a boomerang. On that note; I hadn't seen the discussion on the fringe theories board (so thank you for bringing it to my attention) and I've actually now gone to the user page of the one descenting opinion and tried to clarify Marcuses meaning in Repressive Tolerance; as I believe their personal opinion of what he was saying is most certainly a misreading of his actual statements.

As for User:Last Contrarian "withdrawing" to an RfC; expanding to an RfC would be more accurate; and given that they're now repeating the discussion here, and continue to repeat their arguments only to find the same counter-points; I'd hardly say they're a bastion of self-control or having a good editorial nature. Especially considering their numerous violations of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:GOODFAITH on top of the standard failure to WP:LISTEN. As I stated earlier; something must be done. Otherwise this repetitive discussion (which he's now continuing directly above us with me pasting the mainstream media links I already have for the third time now) will simply never ever end. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, editors have to be WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia on WP:CONSENSUS and not to WP:SOAPBOX without evidence or the capacity to WP:LISTEN to others; as I believe is the case with Last Contrarian. --Jobrot (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Cultural Marxism. Being competent and experienced means you have the common sense to read the archives on controversial articles and to be in dialogue with the work the community has already done; this exact point has been gone over zillions of times in that article already. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Editor behaviour is not the primary issue here, the odd set-up of the content is (there was a brief bit of edit-warring, but that seems to be done now). Criticism of this user on the basis that lots of people have gone down "this road" before rather suggests there is a problem with it, doesn't it? As I noted on the talk page after seeing this thread here, it's frankly bizarre that there is no standalone page for a widely referenced concept such as "Cultural Marxism". That would focus on the original, primary use – and the one most commonly encountered in academic and book sources – to describe a trend in Marxist studies to focus on cultural issues as much as economic ones (in part associated with the Frankurt school, but not exclusively so) but also note the modern use of it as a pejorative in some US right-wing circles. I struggle to understand why the original article on the concept was deleted, and why anyone searching for the term on WP (whether they wish to understand more about arcane mid-20th century Marxist theories or uncover more about the pernicious influence of political correctness) instead now ends up on a subsection of the Frankfurt School page debating alleged conspiracy theories. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support page ban. Editor behaviour is most definitely the issue in this case (that's why we're here). Anyone whose seen how often things need to be repeated to Last Contrarian (WP:LISTEN), or noticed their violations of the strong WP:CONSENSUS to refer to Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory (reflecting the sources used and mainstream media coverage discussed on the talk page), or who has noted Last Contrarian's description of rabid left wing editors for anyone who disagrees with them in violation of WP:GOODFAITH, or their specific desire to have the audience come away with a positive interpretation of the conspiracy theory (violating WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL) can clearly see that behaviour is most definitely the issue here. User:N-HH as I stated to you on the talk page; you're welcome to pursue the recreation of the previous page (which had all of 3 sources using the term explicitly) by the usual means but this is not the place to do so. Finally I'd like to note that Culture War topics, as well as Conspiracy Theories attract a higher amount of disruptive editing; this case is no exception; and is most definitely a behavior problem of an editor who is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

...and you should really read WP:NOTGETTINGIT, as it describes this situation perfectly. Hence the blow out of text here and on the talk page; which prior to Last Contrarian's involvement had become relatively sedate and inactive (a 3 month period of relative quiet on the matter dating back to the last Split Proposal in May). --Jobrot (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deny there might be an issue with editor behaviour, I just said it's not the primary one. The point is any such problems often relate to underlying content problems, especially when that content is an unhappy compromise which people are nonetheless overly invested in, having been immersed in the debate for so long. We're now stuck at "This is what one or two of us have agreed, and we spent ages doing it, so that's that" rather than asking what actually has been agreed and whether it's the right decision (and relying on WP:NOTGETTINGIT to rebut questions can compound this kind of problem). There's also the problem, which afflicts most of WP's politics pages, that people seem more interested in scoring political points than presenting information. Here, we have people who want the page (or rather the section, currently) to go into great detail about how "godless Marxists are taking over" and others, who may indeed currently represent the consensus view, who want it to say "this is all a nutty right-wing conspiracy theory". Some of us just want a clear page explaining Marxist cultural theories and the subsequent polemical use of the term, without judgment and without the topic being buried in modern-day, real-world culture wars. But that's not for ANI of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify; on the talk page currently there is (by my count) an 8 vs 2 consensus in favor of the current section title and lead, and only Last Contrarian is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That's why I'm here. --Jobrot (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no law against questioning a dubious position that happens to be held by eight random, anonymous WP contributors even if it does amount to a temporary consensus (and let's not forget that the consensus for about eight years previously was to have a separate Cultural Marxism page of the sort I would favour, until all this oddness started a couple of years ago). As I've said, I think the current structure and content is terrible, even if maybe for different reasons to Last Contrarian. Anyway, just as ANI is not the venue for my opinions above about broader problems with WP politics pages, nor should it be a place to get a longstanding editor barred from a page for being on the "wrong" side of a content dispute, absent genuine disruption, abuse or continued edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to have administrative experts decide on these matters; and I've highlighted the genuine disruptions, bad behavior and violations of policy above. FYI the oddness started around the time that GamerGate (its self a topic that's attracted a large amount of ArbCom sanctions) brought the Culture War to the AfD as "Cultural Marxism" was a favoured explanation of theirs for why feminism had brainwashed society into allowing women to comment on video games. Don't mistake the popularity of the topic outside of Wikipedia for something caused by Wikipedians; if a topic gets attention in the public - it will get attention on Wikipedia. But thank you for clarifying "the law" and that you're "just asking questions". Albeit in the wrong venue as you keep saying; perhaps you should find the right venue. --Jobrot (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis editwarring against consensus, possible COI

Help, please. To summarise (I can provide more detail on request): User:RogerGLewis added a set of endorsements for David Malone’s candidacy to Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016.[70][71] None of the endorsers added have Wikipedia articles. I deleted them as not being notable, as per common practice on similar articles and WP:CSC.[72]

RogerGLewis reverted.[73] We discussed on Talk page, during which RogerGLewis revealed some sort of direct collaboration with the Malone campaign ("I am awaiting a further list from David Malone"; later also "I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process").[74][75]

I sought further clarification, pointed him to WP:COI[76] and then went to WP:COIN (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016; plus see User_talk:RogerGLewis#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion). RogerGLewis denies having a COI.

At WP:COIN, User:Only in death supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[77] At the Talk page, User:Brianhe supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[78]

Brianhe closed the COIN discussion. Feeling there were unresolved issues, I asked Brianhe to re-open it and he did. A couple of days on, no-one else has since inputted on the COI question. It seems to me RogerGLewis has had a small involvement in a formal campaign and thus a small COI, but I’m happy for others to rule on that and am more concerned about his disruptive edits generally.

On the Talk page, I discussed policy and practice around what endorsements to include.[79][80] I put to RogerGLewis that additional people had weighed in and they supported excluding non-notable endorsements. I re-removed the endorsements.[81] RogerGLewis re-added them.[82] Cycle then repeated over some days.[83][84]

[85][86]

RogerGLewis described approaching other people off-wiki for input;[87][88] I brought WP:CANVASS to his attention. He does not appear to be following its advice.

RogerGLewis has struggled with WP:AGF at times. After I raised COI concerns, he sought to link me to the rival Lucas/Bartley candidacy.[89] He suggested an IP editor might be part of a conspiracy.[90] He cries vandalism.[91] He talks of “natural justice” being denied,[92] etc. etc.

RogerGLewis has made other edits to the article. These have had some useful content, although notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him.[93] I’m afraid many of his edits are lengthy and simply hard to follow. [94][95]

Edit-warring against consensus. Difficulties with other policies and guidance. WP:OWN behaviour. Other examples available. Can an administrator please input. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I look forward to adressing these concerns with appropriate wikipedians. The characterisations made by Bondegezou are simply unsubstanciated and claims of disruptive or edit warring are clearly false. The Talk page entries discussing the conventions which are described regarding notability I have found to be contrary to Wikipedia best practice. I have set out the nature of the inductuive reasoning inherent in the approach for which Bondegezou claims consensus and there is no consensus as I have enumerated quite clearly. Inductive logic is not the most easily precised of concepts although I felt my approach setting out the relevant wikipedia policy related to it was actually pretty clear. Contrary to the claim that "notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him".[96] are not bourne out by my engagement with the arguments. I await further advice from other wikipedians. Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The OP's post here is not very short. However, it pales in comparison, both in length and coherence, to the walls of text Roger has posted at the article Talk page. Here are a few examples of parts of those walls:

• I am starting a new talk section on this matter and hope other editors will contribute to the question, preferably editors who are interested in STV AV voting and Flat structured organisational and collective Cooperative participative leadership models. I.e Matrifocal and not Patriarchal Hierarchical stuctures and institutions in political economy.
• Ontology and language[edit] Hirsch interprets Hilary Putnam as asserting that different concepts of "the existence of something" can be correct.
• Causation between actual entities is essential to their actuality. Consequently, for Whitehead, each actual entity has its distinct and definite extension in physical Minkowski space, and so is uniquely identifiable. A description in Minkowski space supports descriptions in time and space for particular observers. It is part of the aim of the philosophy of such an ontology as Whitehead's that the actual entities should be all alike, qua actual entities; they should all satisfy a single definite set of well stated ontological criteria of actuality.

I might add that there is a good deal of disruption going on at the article, and although it involves both editors, at first glance, the more disruptive editor is probably Roger.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 (talk Hello thank you for looking at the article. I appreciate that there is quite a lot of ground covered in the discussion by my posts. This is because there are several quite difficult concepts to get across as to why the Notability of Politicians in the green party and what constitutes evidence of such notability is quite different to other political parties. Largely this is because The Green Party uses STV AV voting and in this election is fielding large numbers of candidates. The other reason is related to the FPTP voting system for UK elections which means the Green Party Has only one MP this issue also effects UKIP and the LIB Dems as well. MP´s generally have a Wikipedia Article and notability for all endorsements is satisfied as per the convention that is at issue in the Article in question, The Labour Party election has a seperate article for Endorsements and the Conservative leadership page is very heavy on the list front. Whilst the UKIP page is not troubled by very long lists , the Current position on the GP Leaderhip 2016 article does not seem over done in my view and does work well following the wikipedia guidance to have a lead before the list and after the title. The green Party does have a good number of county councillors and other appointed party officials far fewer of these people have a wikipedia article and this is what I have been distinguishing in the Argument for applying the Tests Wikipedia applies to questions of notability in lists. It is really only the Endorsements I think that have been presenting a dispute indeed Bondegezou fairly concedes that some of my edits have been quite helpful. On Canvassing I think the charge is not founded, although I have read the guidance in detail now and will act strictly within the guidelines. My Last post regarding Machine learning Code to assist with notability questions and source relevance is a serious invitation to help the project and colaborate with other wikipedeans to develop such tools. If it is the wrong place to make such suggestions in the talk page to that article I would be grateful for some guidance as to where I should post it. Linguists here will apppreciate the difficulty in being asked to prove a negative, it does take more explication. RogerGLewis (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis's main argument as to why he feels he is not edit-warring against a consensus is that he's emailed his friend who will definitely support him when he's back from holiday.

I am not kidding. That's what he's said: [97]

User:Bbb23, sorry I wasn't briefer! Trying to give a fair and comprehensive description. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou would you care to comment on whether you are a member of a political party , and have you ever stood for election for any political party WP:COI. would it be proper to edit on relevant party matters and further to participate in the article of a rival party if you had indeed sought public office for and are a current or former member of a rival political party? Please draw any potential conflict of interest to the appropriate authorities. I am happy to leave this question here, thank you. 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone sort out this mess - appears to be copy and paste from elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? Bbb23 (talk RogerGLewis (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I have reviewed WP:COIPOLITICAL. I see no problem. Bondegezou (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I note RogerGLewis is now accusing me of sock-puppetry with no evidence being presented.[98] I have never sock'ed. Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Notice of possible and alledged COI . I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? edit warring or sock puppetry WP:COI Bbb23 (talk talk RogerGLewis (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I see no problem under WP:COIPOLITICAL. I've never sock'ed. Sock-puppetry is a serious allegation: what evidence are you presenting? This all appears to be a ploy to distract from the fact that you admit to having been in regular contact with David Malone over his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk Your activity on the UKIP entry and this entry alone is highly questionable. This is not a ploy I am happy to continue to answer your allegations that is on going. This is a seperate matter and it is not for me to act as inquisitor. Other editors who have already commented could perhaps see what they think. On evidence here is the result of the 2010 election you stood as a candidate for the Lib Dems in this comment from you in 2006 seems to suggest you have been operating under a double standard since then. I expect inquiry into your editing activity in 2010 will be of some interest to others. Why are half the people working on this page also Doctor Who fans? Bondegezou 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Because many of those editing here are Liberal Democrats (contributing their expertise while trying to retain a NPOV, of course), and geeky LibDems tend, for some reason, also to be Doctor Who fans. --Whouk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what to make of that above comment, being a Lib Dem supporter myself. (Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) Guilty as charged =) LibDem and Doctor Who fan. Also quite a fan of following boundary commission decisions...er.... doktorb | words 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I can't say how common this is, but I definitely fit the description of a 'geeky LibDem Doctor Who fan' :). Maybe it's to do with the sci-fi-like hope that the party will be Government? -UK-Logician-2006 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Well for balance I'm a Doctor Who fan but most definitely not a supporter of the Lib Dems! Timrollpickering 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I think this is ample evidence of gross hypocrisy, how it is dealt with is a matter for others, I am of course happy for you to turn yourself in as it were But with regard to our own dispute on this article your conflict is quite clear and you have not addressed the facts yet again but resorted to ad hominem with no evidence. At this point I think I am justified in claiming that you have acted in bad faith and cetainly not on good faith.08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) I refer you to the answer I gave previously. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk Very well, I will initiate the formal procedures and prepare the full case against you, Meanwhile I trust you will refrain from Intervening on this or any other UKIP or Green Party Article until the formal process is completed. I will also advise the Green Party whose interests have possibly been damaged by your actions as have the tenets of electroal law. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@RogerGLewis: Please be aware of our policy on legal threats -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar ^{talk or stalk} Hello again just to be sure I have not made a threat of Legal action and have no intention to the case I mention is one regarding showing the on wikipedia evidence in the usual consensus channels. I do however think that the Green PArty and UKIP will take a very dim view of an active Lib Dem member and formner candidate making allegations of COI and NPOV etc whilst clearly suffering the mallady that they complain of themselves. I hoe that clears things up. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to try and clear up who's said what when, please note that chunks of the above credited to me, User:Timrollpickering, User:Doktorbuk, User:UK-Logician-2006 etc. have been cut and paste here by RogerGLewis from other Talk pages and were not posted by me here. Some of the material comes from 10 years ago. Bondegezou (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out (since I have been pinged rather a lot the last few days over this issue) my only comments was that a)when making these lists of 'endorsements' it is common to only include notable people - otherwise you end up with huge lists of 'Associate drainage supervisor Dobbs endorses' etc. B. That the COI only really comes into it if the person with a link to the candidate is trying to overly promote their candidate in the face of the above. 'Pad the resume' so to speak. When the first issues came up, I was willing to extend AGF that RogerGLewis was just unaware of how wikipedia does things. After the extended kerfuffle this has become, I am now leaning heavily towards the latter COI-promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This entire thread is incredibly messy, and doesn't lend itself to be easily understood - the above copy/pastes could have just been linked diffs -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have hatted what appears to be a copy and paste and done some formatting. It should read easier now. If someone wants to sort out the hatted mess, feel free. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar Bondegezou (talk This thread is a result of editing in bad faith by Bondegezou How can an active member and former candidate for the Lib Dems claim a NPOV on Green Party and UKIP matters. I am happy to move that matter to a fresh new page and to precis all of the evidence I have presented, if that would help. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:COIPOLITICAL, being a member of a political party is not in itself considered a conflict of interest. Involvement in a specific campaign may be considered a conflict of interest. I quote, "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Political candidates and their staff should not edit articles about themselves, their supporters, or their opponents." You yourself have described working with David Malone, one of the candidates, on his social media campaigning. All editors must of course follow WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing non-neutrally and editing with a COI are not quite the same thing. It is possible to edit neutrally with a COI and also to edit non-neutrally when you have no COI. You (RogerGLewis) appear to not be doing the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

talk I have no interest in the outcome of the Green Party election I have also made most of my contributions on the other candidates positions and have included more edits for those candidates than for David Malone. I am not a memebr of a campaign or a member of Staff for anyone I am a retired gentleman who lives in Sweden that spends my time Doing monetary reform activism. The evidence is simply not there to make the sweeping generalisations and half truths which you state. I accept that they are your opinion but they are not based on the facts. Regarding the substantive issues regarding noteability I have quoted chapter and verse regarding that and the Title with Lead solution seems to have worked well without a list of every Tom Dick and harry resulting. Regarding Bondegezou (talkand his clear non neutral point of view and COI I have just collected the Edit history data for The relavant articles and will present the data and inferences that I make from it In the appropriate locationwhen I complete my analysis RogerGLewis (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Diffs where RogerGLewis describes contact with David Malone's campaign: [99], [100], [101]. These do not describe a major role in the campaign, but I think they're prima facie evidence of some connection and why I raised a COI concern. I note also that RogerGLewis has not edited any other articles than Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016 and spillover since 2012. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talkIs this areas for the COI discussion as you alledge against me or is the content and consensus matter also to be discussed ? RogerGLewis (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is really an overblown issue though. I have opened a question at the relevant talk page for the article to deal with it. It is a content dispute over inserting lists of non-notable people into an article. Leaving aside motivations, this is a minor thing that is dealt with routinely every day. Wikipedia tends to do it in a similar way each time, because we have list guidelines that are followed. But they are guidelines, if consensus at the article talkpage is to ignore the guidelines and add every tom dick and harry who has said 'I like X candidate' so be it. But it really is a yes/no question that does not need to be dragged out like this by anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis shows no sign of respecting any consensus. I've tried standard WP:dispute resolution and RogerGLewis just reverts to his version and posts a page-long tract about Kropotkin on the Talk page. If others want to try, good luck! But I think administrator input is needed to, er, more strongly encourage behaviour change. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Moving forwards

From a cursory read of the above, and the fact this is dragging out a little without any real resolutions, I'd like to propose a gentle caution for both editors regarding editing with a conflict of interest, provide a strong suggestion to read through WP:COI and WP:NPOV thoroughly and ask that they cease editing the respective articles directly for the time being. I would reccomend the editors make use of edit requests or suggesting changes and gaining concensus before making the edit themselves. In the future, issues like this may be better served at the conflict of interest noticeboard -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to stay away from the Green Party leadership article if the community feels that is best.

I tried at COIN, but got little response! I think RogerGLewis's walls of text put people off...

I do wish to dispute having any COI myself. I am a member of a political party. I have been editing political articles for years without problems. I know many other members of the editing community on those articles are also members of political parties or supporters of particular political parties, and they also edit without problems. WP:COIPOLITICAL, as I understand it, allows all this -- as long, of course, as everyone respects WP:NPOV. To start saying members of political parties have COIs is to re-write WP:COI and would decimate the editing community on those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't see that you have a conflict of interest. Nor do I see that Roger has an obvious conflict. Putting aside Roger's walls of text, which are indeed off-putting at a minimum, there are two problems with the article. First and foremost, the issue of who should be listed as an endorser should be resolved. At this point, I don't see that anyone agrees with Roger. Second, regardless of the endorsement issue, neither editor should be edit-warring at the article. Reverting non-notable endorsements in either direction is not an exemption to edit-warring. I reserve the right to block editors or lock the article if there is sufficient disruption to it to warrant it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I have been avoiding editing the article itself while the matter is addressed here, so I've left the article as is since Tuesday evening, various problems included. RogerGLewis has added a bunch more material (some useful, some not, in my estimation). I concur on the question of removing non-notable endorsements. RogerGLewis remains opposed. If someone would like to try removing them from the article, we'll see what he does next. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Number 57.made some helpful suggestions regarding formatting and keeping points shorter, I will edit dowm my own walls of text,I apologise to User talk:Bondegezou for neglecting this in my rookie enthusiasm to engage in the argumentation of wikipedia policy. There is a new section in the talkpage now which I also thank Bondegezou for, hopefully this will result in a consensus in the community, with people not being put off by the low signal to high noise ratio, optimistically.RogerGLewis (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not moving forwards

RogerGLewis has made some positive noises, tried to understand Wikipedia processes better and withdrawn prior ad hominems. I have engaged with this. Yet he still point blank refuses to accept the ever-stronger[102][103] consensus against him, declares the process inadequate and filibusters to keep his version in place, again[104] and again[105] and again.[106] Looks like a textbook example of what WP:CONSENSUS describes as tendentious editing. Playing nice (at least, nicer), but never actually accepting anyone else's view. Any process that produces an answer that he doesn't like isn't good enough and he keeps playing for more time.

Oh, guess what? If the article is unchanged for an additional week, as he proposes, the leadership election will be over and all the padding of extra endorsements for certain candidates will have done its job.

Where next? User:Bbb23 or others, is it OK if I or someone enact the consensus edit and remove non-notable endorsements? Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Roger's contention that a week is mandated. This is not an RfC per se. However, the "vote" has only been in existence (formally) for one day, and thus far there are three supporters and no opposers. If someone else thinks that's enough, great, but I don't think you should be the one to implement a consensus given your involvement. Nor will I do it for other reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

For others following, the relevant "vote" is at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016#Should_the_.27endorsements.27_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements.3F. Additional input very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Theedardanian

Theedardanian (talk · contribs) was warned for disruptive editing, after continued content removal and incivility. He now continues by targeting me. Asked him several times to support claims and tried to enter discussions, but to no avail (funny how when asked to support his claim in one of the "issues", he answers It isn't worth it. No matter what we say, no matter how much proof we bring here, you and your administrators will do whatever you agreed to do - which is to vandalize our history.. Examples of recent comments 1, 2, 3.--Zoupan 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like Theedardanian has been advised of the discretionary sanctions in this particular topic area. Perhaps a better venue would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Unless you'd prefer a community response?--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan (talk · contribs) Cameron11598 (talk · contribs) "Recent" comments : 21 July 2016 , 5 August 2016, 8 August 2016 . Really? Those aren't even recent. Keep going to administrators. Knowing they will defend you. Shame, shame. They can block me, they can block all albanians, all croatians and all bosnians whose history you have literally been vandalizing, whom you have been harassing, but you can't change the truth. I am really wondering how is it possible that you still are allowed to edit. And everytime you report me, I get an answer. I have to thank you, Zoupan. And I am pretty sure you will be here editing for a long time, while reporting people who do not agree with your vandalism, all because administrators side with you. Keep reporting me, I beg you to. It's quite a good thing to me, and to all of us, we can finally see why wikipedia has turned out to be just another serbian propaganda website. We can finally see how administrators openly take sides. Can't wait to see how this turns out. Administrators, I am ready and waiting. I know you will only prove my words. :) Theedardanian (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm going to step in here as a Croatian who has had some minor interaction with Zoupan (I did a GA review for an article submitted by Zoupan and had cordial interactions with them). Theedardanian, when you bring up an allegation of misbehaviour it is required to bring evidence along side it. This evidence is most preferably in the form of diffs, but, if you can point me to a talk page discussion or comment by Zoupan that would support your allegations of harassment that would be fine as well. To the comments about vandalism, again, diffs would be required but I have the feeling that this is referring to the Prizren Fortress, Dukagjin highlands, and Kastrati (tribe) articles and as such are accessible by the diffs provided by Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Theedardanian I made  No comment on your behavior, I just mentioned you'd already had a discretionary sanction warning and that perhaps WP:AE was a better venue than ANI. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Montanabw misrepresenting sources and guidelines in AfDs

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

---

User:Montanabw, who has been brought here several times for various behavior matters, has repeatedly and blatantly misrepresented sources and guidelines in AfD discussions, in support of keeping the articles in question. Corrections from various editors have had no impact on the pattern. I have collected examples from the last several weeks below; other editors can certainly attest to examples going back much further. It's not clear, nor is it important, whether these misrepresentations are intended or not; what is clear is that they are a pattern of unacceptable behavior.

At this time, I am not proposing an enforcement action, nor am I precluding the possibility of one; I'm seeking 1) to establish the record of this pattern for the future, and 2) to establish a firm consensus that misrepresenting sources, policies, and guidelines is unacceptable and must stop.

To editors Agricola44, Bearcat, Lemongirl942 and Caeciliusinhorto: As involved parties, you may have something to add.

To preclude another matter: Montanabw has accused me of "personal attacks" over the tone with which I've responded to several of these incidents. I concede that I could have chosen gentler words, but it must be stated that I have only ever commented on Montana's actions as an editor, never on any other aspect of her person. I think I've stayed well within the margins of WP:NPA, but Montana is of course welcome to press that matter further if she chooses. This discussion, however, is about misrepresentation of sources and guidelines with respect to deletion.

Evidence

I've pulled the most relevant quotes from recent incidents below, but I encourage readers to examine these incidents in their full contexts before commenting.

Date	Link	Claim	Reality
26-Jul	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national korfball team	"if a sport is notable enough for a wikipedia article, then as a rule the national teams (at least of major nations) are also notable"	No such rule or guideline exists in WP:NSPORT or in WP:ORG.
29-Jul	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Kiyama	"it appears that editors are beginning to add sources."	Page history revealed no addition of sources from when the page was PROD'ed to when this statement was made. As page has been deleted, this can only be confirmed by an admin.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Galletti	"Sources provided are not ideal but provide adequate number of credits to pass WP:GNG."	WP:GNG addresses sourcing, and is not met by unsourced claims.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam McCune (columnist)	"one can easily pull up some of his work there, and he really did win the award. So WP:BASIC is met."	WP:BASIC specifically excludes the use of non-independent material for establishing notability.
2-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Urban Dance Factory	"The "passing mentions" are more than adequate to me"	Trivial mentions do not count toward WP:N.
7-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Whalen	"Any of these standing alone, won't get to notability, I agree; but together they might, as in some cases, multiple sources can "stack""	Wikipedia:N makes no affordance for "stacking" sources that fail the criteria in order to reach notability.
14-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Christian	"Important to separate ton[e] from content. There is enough here to pass GNG."	WP:GNG addresses sourcing, and is not met by unsourced claims; apparently not the first time the responding editor has had to state this to Montana.
14-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marmite Sisters (2nd nomination)	"The main source appears to be a print source"..."I'd AGF on the print source."	"1. The source in question is about a different subject entirely, with no evidence that it mentions this subject. 2. The subject of WP:AGF is editor behavior; it in no way addresses determining the validity of sources.
16-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Corday	"A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG. And if "borderline," the presumption is in favor of keeping."	WP:GNG says neither of those things.
19-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fletcher Beasley	"This is one of those situations where we need to "stack" notability but when we do we get to WP:N"	Wikipedia:N makes no affordance for "stacking" sources that fail the criteria in order to reach notability.
19-Aug	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Romanovsky	"Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF."	Called out for misrepresenting the preceding discussion on that page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swpb (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Could the OP please provide diffs. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The profound misunderstanding of GNG is troubling. Especially as it appears to be a repeat issue. Bearcat should probably comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the stacking issue, that provision is made in WP:Notability (people) where a single source is bot sufficient to demonstrate motability multiple sources can be put together. I'll look at the rest later. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with many of these (possibly any of them – I can't access the second). Whereas things like GNG show the 'rule', it is the interpretation in light of the facts that is where the devil is. Saying 'A single major article (LA Times) combined with multiple other sources meets GNG' is a valid talk page interpretation of "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" in my book. Aside from that there are some bigger claims that are not supported by diffs, which I'd like to see before commenting any further. – SchroCat (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Response from Montanabw

I hope this can be a "snow close" and I would respectfully suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG be considered. My response:

• I have previously stated at my talk that I began to become interested in following AfD due to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts,which pops up on my watchlist almost daily (and the number of article about women that are PRODed and AfD'd is ridiculous, though some are appropriately tagged), and then I'm sometimes drawn to other various topic lists and pages at AfD. swpb is a pretty regular contributor to PROD and AfD.
• swpb seems to have difficulty understanding that others may not agree with his/her personal interpretation of policy and that WP:Consensus can change. I do lean "inclusionist" (and I am with the consensus about 64% of the time) and I do consider AfD to be deletionist-dominated. I find that the interpretation of WP:N at AfD is applied inconsistently and that some of the SNG guidelines have a problematic consensus that is also inconsistent. To that end I have initiated a couple of RfC's and several other discussions. That said, consensus takes time to evolve, and in the meantime, as I look at articles at AfD, PROD and AfC, particularly those on women, I am appalled at the systemic bias that exists in both the interpretation of WP:N and in some of the SNG guidelines that have been created for various topics.
• On the other hand, I am also appalled at the amount of true cruft that is created and note that the folks at NPP, AFC and AFD do have their work cut out for them in thinning out the articles on junior hockey league players and garage bands.
• But essentially, I have not misrepresented "policy" (which is at WP:N) and "guidelines" (which include WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and several other pages, some of which contradict each other). I have expressed my interpretation and understanding of the above and have frequently offered opinions that differ from that of swpb and other AfD regulars. It's a rather walled garden atmosphere there, particularly for those like me who lean inclusionist.
  • I will acknowledge that I made an incorrect statement here, where I thought another user had added sources, but that other user had actually just done some other cleanup. That was a good faith mistake, and I said so at the time. This is, in fact, a classic example of the scorched earth approach that swpb takes when people disagree with him/her.
• In turn, swpb has responded with threat and intimidation that include but ware not limited to, the following. For now, I am only posting examples that occurred just on my talk page and swpb's (not including many spats elsewhere at various AfD discussions now too numerous to list:

1. swpb's first round of personal attacks on my talk page, in full before I hatted and then deleted the discussion: [107] Of note, his/her comment: "To Montana, it would be unwise to conclude from Andy's incorrect comment that you can't eventually find yourself in trouble. I don't expect you will, but I've been around enough to be confident that you can." (this referencing Pigsonthewing. RexxS also commented there).
2. I decided to discuss swpb's own incivility at his/her talk page (discussion in full before deletion): [108]
3. Round two of swpb's attacks on my talk page, just prior to this ANI, began thusly, and I will show diffs of swpb's multiple and changing edits there:

1. stating: "There is no justifying your behavior."
2. same and doubling down
3. WP:NPA -- accusation of lying
4. threat: "don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the only one who's noticed"
5. adding a "second warning"

• Finally in posting this ANI, swpb uses vague generalities to misstate my record as a 10-year wikipedia veteran. Of course I have been "brought here several times for various behavior matters" by various disgruntled users. I've also been here several times to discuss incidents involving others (someone once said I've turned up on over 100 ANI cases one way or another) But as my absolutely clean block log and my list of 20+ personal ANI cases (which may be incomplete) shows, I have never been blocked or subjected to any sanction at ANI beyond the occasional admonishment to be nicer.
• So, I most respectfully suggest that swpb take a hard look in the mirror, recognize that his/her tone is filled with shaming, threats, attacking "you statements" and an assumption of ill-will and nefarious motives that simply does not exist.. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Close/collapse the entire thread: OP states that no administrative intervention is sought at this time. ANI is a place to seek such intervention. The original post states that the intent is to seek consensus on a point of policy. ANI is wholly unsuited to achieve such a consensus: Clarifications of policy should be sought on the talk page of the contested policy, or if not such talk page is appropriate, at the Village Pump. Even construing the individual cases cited in OP's favor, this is merely a matter of disputed practical application of policies and guidelines. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Montanabw's policy arguments listed above are incorrect: Even then, they are not sanctionable, and thereby are not appropriate to bring to ANI. So long as an argument of policy or guideline is made in good faith, it is fine. Taking a bunch of what are at worst nonfrivolous arguments to extend or apply policy and using them to bootstrap a claim of a pattern of disruption is not a proper way to resolve AfD disputes. In AfD, the proper answer for asserting an improper point of policy or guideline is to argue at the AfD. And if the closer adopts an improper point of policy or guideline in the close, the proper forum is DRV. Even if we assume Montanabw's arguments are both incorrect and disruptive of AfD, then a sanction might lie, but I doubt it would at such an early stage, when the length of the pattern OP asserts is all of a few weeks, and comprises less than a dozen individual AfDs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also the complaint about the Marmite Sisters one is downright silly. Montanabw says she would AGF about a source. It took me a minute to really understand why there was even a complaint about this, and then understand why I didn't see it. The reason is because that use of the phrase "AGF" in reference to the content of offline sources comes from practice at WP:DYK. See {{DYKtickAGF}} and how that template is used at DYK. The meaning is not to assume good faith about a source, but to assume that the editor who added the source was acting in good faith when he or she added it, rather than assuming the source does not exist or that it does not say anything that the editor who added it claimed it to say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I support Close/collapse the entire thread. The OP does not actually appear to be seeking sanctions here, I'm not convinced that Montanabw's behaviour requires sanctions, and as far as I can see, the OP still has not provided diffs. I am against boomerangs on principle, so let's just shut this down with maybe a low-key warning to the OP. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I've been away all day so just seeing this and getting to this late, but on a quick glance I see that a difference of opinion is being construed as policy and behavior violations. This is a dangerous mind set for any editor. There is nothing here that is sanctionable and AN/I is not the place to collect diffs for future use, an action which implies there will be future problems, an assumption of bad faith. Further, I'm not happy about opening this with allusions to past behaviors for which there are no diffs; this clearly creates a biased mind set in the reader. I'd close this thread with a warning to the poster that AN/I is a place for immediate and possibly urgent issues which are clear violations of the site regulations and should not be used to air grievances.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

Behaviour of Swpb

From the essay Wikipedia:ANI advice #General advice about opening a dispute: "ANI will review your actions as well as your dispute and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. If your behavior isn't exemplary, don't accuse others." I'm afraid that I find the post from Swpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Montanabw's talk page completely unacceptable and a violation of NPA:

• You lied (or were extremely un-diligent, given how many warnings you've gotten) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marmite Sisters (2nd nomination) and you got caught, again. Absolutely no one is buying your "attack" line. And don't bother replying here or on my talk: I won't be reading it, and there is no justifying your behavior. AN/I gets more plausible every time you do this—don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the only one who's noticed.

I have no problem someone in calling a spade a spade, or even calling a mendacious statement a lie, but to characterise Montanabw's suggestion of "Keep or merge to Graham Barnfield. The main source appears to be a print source, and given this group was active in the 80s and 90s, I am not surprised that Google is light. I'd AGF on the print source. At the very least, merge and preserve the article history in case someone wants to do more work on it." as a lie stretches credulity beyond its limit. I shudder to think what Swpb would have written if Montanabw had just suggested "Keep". It needs an apology from Swpb: they are far too invested in that AfD and need to realise that other editors can legitimately hold different opinions from them. I'm guessing that the outcome of the deletion debate will be 'merge', which ought to be the trigger for Swbp to redeem themselves with a gracious acknowledgement that Montanabw's !vote was reasonable. --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved Commentary

The misstatements of policy, which are on the line between individual interpretation and deliberate, aren't much more than what is in most AfDs. When looked at in the AFD tool [109] there definitely seems to be a propensity to keep first, but that isn't a crime. Suggest collapsing this whole thing and closing it and everyone just move on.--Savonneux (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Hundreds of unsourced edits to TV subject articles

• 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs)

All the additions may or may not be factually correct, but of this we're quite sure: nothing has been sourced. This may require a backhoe to clean out all the trivia and unreferenced tidbits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D501:5048:8A42:6CE2 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest IP of my infatuated stalker

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

---

86.187.173.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of the edit-hopper described here and here. I figure I'll keep wacking away at the IP's until the edit filter goes up then see what happens. AccountForANI (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, edits rolled back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

WhereverTV COI/SPAM vandalism continuing

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

---

Can I get a rush block on AntonioTelevize (talk · contribs)? I took them to WP:COIN over a week ago regarding three years of sneaky SPAM regarding the non-notable IPTV service WhereverTV where they slyly tried to make the link to their paid service look like the official link for a television network's live stream, and it went unnoticed for months. Several warnings have been issued since then to knock off the spamming along with the COIN notice; all have been ignored and AntonioTelevize is clearly playing WP:IDHT in not responding at all to their editing concerns. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Done & Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Battles in Székely Land

To start off, I'm an uninvolved editor who happened across this edit war in progress. The article in question is Székely Land, and the involved parties are User:Biruitorul and User:KIENGIR.

It seems to have started with this edit, which seems to indicate that these editors have some sort of history (indeed, there is, and it isn't pretty). A quick look through the article history indicates escalating tensions and reverts without so much as an attempted discussion on the talk page (the closest thing to a resolution attempt is here, which seems to have been abandoned). Threats were made (not legal): [110], [111], and [112]. WP:AGF seems to have gone out the window, and a 3RR and NPA warnings to both involved here seems to have done nothing. Both editors have previously been blocked for edit-warring, and I feel that some stronger remedies may be in order now. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

First, let me correct you on your timeline. My last edit on the Székely Land page took place at 23:24 on 19 August; your warning arrived at 00:28 on 20 August. So, actually, I want to be clear I've backed off that page, in the interests of involved parties.

Second, perhaps I didn't approach this the right way, but KIENGIR does make personal attacks, and there should be some way to make him understand this is not acceptable. Given these attacks, plus a demonstrated failure to understand WP:RS, plus a likely agenda, plus lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the English language, I think it's perfectly fair to say that at some point in the future, say in six months' time, the community should once again look at his position here. (About that last point, not knowing English, check out his revamped article on the Ip massacre (which, by the way, I didn't touch). Whereas before we had a short, comprehensible article citing neo-fascist and national-communist sources, now we have an utterly incomprehensible mess that still manages to quote neo-fascist and national-communist sources. Not much of an improvement, if you ask me.)

Third, I'm not sure what I should have responded to that diatribe on my talk page. "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations"? OK, although as an aside, actual experts don't go around calling themselves experts. "Would you once try to forget here you are a Wikipedian and not Romanian, and would you a little bit ignore your Hungarophobia and interested in professional articles?" Obvious WP:NPA violation coupled with baseless allegations of "Hungarophobia". There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources.

Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dschslava,

thank you for your intervention, if I'd meet first with Biruitorul repeated revert, I'd notify an Administrator about the state of edit warring - I just recently cleared with one regarding an other issue in a certain frame what means repeatedly, Biruitorul now clearly crossed this line. Thank you also that you listed clearly Biruitorul's threats, if has to be also noted WP:AGF has been overriden strictly by Biruitorul, as he proved it also in the former ANI incident he rendered and failed, he did not learn anything from it, he also refused the communication then, there, like also when I started the WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS process in his talk page and asking him all the time for calm collaboration ang good faith. 3RR was not harmed in the corresponding article. Personal attacks I suffered, it can be read in the edit logs, however Biruitorul foxily tries to identify himself as a victim. I was even astonished why Helmut von Moltke warned me about this, well also in the former ANI incident a huge attempt has been revealed to coin other editors and Administrators.

Reaction to Biruitorul's post:

- I did not make personal attacks to you, you did continously in your former ANI report when you composed such a defamation campaign based on your distorted personal opinion and you repeated them like a robot without any attempt to communicate or understanding the failed approach of yours, as it has been noticed also by the Administrators. He you started with "obsession" and "revisionist agenda", although the first can be easily proved towards you, the second is a usual bluff since supporting the factual sourced approach towards event next to strictly POV edits by emotion has nothing to do with the latter. You do not hinder you ethnicity in your user page and what I have told was not an attack, another Romanian Wikipedian told me here not any ethnicity exists, everybody is a Wikipedian and I asked you to hold back your Romanian emotions and overexaggerated sensitivity - this is not an attack -, and unfortunately your edit's, edit logs and approach, moreover the total denial of communication and building WP:CONSENSUS unfortunately very much tending to a case of Hungarophobia. Everyone can check your manifestations the former ANI incident you rendered, how you dealt with Hungary related cases, full with accusations, bad faith that is the by-production of your mind.

Let's see one example:

-In the Northern Transylvania article, after adding an fact without any politics or emotion that incidents with the military happened before the massacres, you manifestated immediately:

" I reject blaming the victims of mass murder for being murdered" -> A result of your own negative -prejudicative manifestation towards me and Hungary related cases, although - you are a first level English speaker - not any root of such assertion existed or meant, moreover it is well-known in one case negligence caused the incident without any involvement of any ethnicity. You immediately, without any discussion or calm thinking you blamed and made a revert and if we check you edit logs and comments you are enthusiastically adding any material that would make appear Hungary or Hungarians in a negative manner, just see the recent case (even if your additions are sourced or true or not relevant or would not belong to the article). This combattant attitude has no benefit but better the good faith and mutual collaboration. Abouth "childish" and "securist", I have raised these in a question qualifying a certain planned behavior in the future, it is still not a personal attack in a way that you'd make it appear, since yes, I consider still these are holding if you think by cataloging anf filing secret service style reports and defamations and to render new ANI incidents reminds me the Communist times, and this is totally AGAINST the concept of Wikipedia and GOOD FAITH, where mutual collaboration leads to good articles with a truthful and objective content, not any pre-planned disruptive behavior, like you want to achieve a solution to REMOVE (" hopefully convince the community to topic-ban you ") the element that is disturbing you instead of face the facts and keep Wikipedia rules and struggle for objectivity and truthful content that you obviously denied in the Székely Land article. Wikipedia has it's own rules, if one is harmed, arbitration starts, we have to live with this, but to collect and catalogue files on a person with an aim to a desired ban does not fulfill any Wikipedia principle, on the contrary, such cases were in practise during the Communism. Moreover you advertize in your personal page that "This user seeks to promote peace and harmony among Central and Eastern European Wikipedians" and "This user utterly condemns the criminal regime that ruled Romania from 1947 to 1989." ---> Unfortunately we did not see these principles to be followed by you, I am deeply sorry!

- I understand WP:RS, maybe you have a problem since you just removed a bunch of them although they would balance you POV edit. If I have English mistakes, feel free to correct them, I don't think I am among the worse who are editing the English Wikipedia. Moreover the Ip massacre article was poorly written and constructed, also it contained heavier English mistakes, however, again anyone should feel free to correct linguistic mistakes. How you could tell dear hat it has no improvement???? You completely regard as a fool all Wikipedians? An article that does not mention precisely the events, preludes of such an important event of a high impact? However, you are again telling something that is not true, since I did not add any "neo-fascist" or "national-communist" sources, moreover I did not remove any former source

- Why you spare the ANI audience about the fact the "I am heavy-weight expert professional in Hungary - Romania history affiliations" quote was added to your page not by me, but an IP Address that started to provocate me and an other user with composed lies? In such a poor way you wish to evade that you AGAIN REFUSED ANY COMMUNICATION THAT FOR IN THE EARLIER ANI INCIDENT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS?

-"There really isn't much to respond to, especially as the comment relies on rhetoric rather than reliable sources." -> ???? You just removed the second and third time RELIABLE SOURCES that was added by me, you don't feel ashamed you try to coin again editors, admins reading this ANI incident? Are you serious?

-"Anyway, I have better things to do here than tangle with someone who can't grasp WP:RS, WP:NPOV and other basic policies - let others deal with him. I admit I wasn't always constructive on the page in question, and I apologize, but I'm ready to move on to more productive endeavors" -> WP:RS is a phrase you repeat like "personal attack" or "revisionist agenda", the more you repeat the more you think it will be true....but please...WP:NPOV do not mention again, because if someobody struggles for this in this community, it is me and all of my edits are proving this and all of them I can PROUDLY defend. Unfortunately the conflict you rendered is mostly just and only because you don't want to follow WP:NPOV, and I explained it to you very carefully in your personal page by my resolution attempt. I have to tell you here then, we may reach CONSENSUS and all of your edits can remain in the Székely Land article if you also let mine. If you disagree, we have to remove both of our additions and try to build a new consensus and since the former content was an unreferenced content - thus it may be deleted - you have to see without building consensus YOU HAVE NO CHANCE. I am sorry you rejected my first consensus offer that was totally free of POV, POLITICS, or EMOTIONS.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

• I have nothing to respond to this rambling screed other than reiterating my apologies for allowing things to get slightly out of hand, and my promise to avoid this user as much as possible in the future, given that constructive collaboration with him is at best a frustrating waste of time.
• Actually, I will note just one thing: I'm hardly the only productive contributor he's antagonized. I urge interested parties to look at two talk pages - where I had zero involvement - and where he made it painfully clear he has no real grasp of WP:RS. These are Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) and Talk:László Bárdossy. At the latter page, the exasperation of the administrator (and prolific content contributor) engaged with this user even reached a similar "threat" to mine: "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary".
• So I'm not the only one who's found it impossible to work with KIENGIR, but I will stay away, and let someone else deal with this festering problem. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Biruitorul,

- you prove again everything that I've demonstrated here, instead of communicating, you are evading, because you also realized you have no chance, unfortunately facts are facts.

- You are again foxily deteriorating the attention by quoting solved earlier cases and discussions in the talk page has nothing to do with this, you cannot hide that you removed WP:RS with an disruptive aim, ignoring good faith and consensus building. The quote of the current Administrator "I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary" was meant to make an open debate about the validity of possible territorial demands towards Croatia, it has nothing common with your negative aimed behavior, so you again mislead the community here - and anyway that case I had also right and I also demonstrated it with an RS! It is heavily funny you try even to make any comparison with an Administrator who has an ultimate good faith and collaborative effort - comparing to you - :)

- So, regardless how desperately you try to wash yourself out, you are the one who is REJECTING communication and REJECTS to follow Wikipedia guidelines, meanwhile you foxily try to avoid to face the problems your created with your behavior! I repeat, in Wikipedia not any activity may be hidden, so the Administrator's will notice again your continous misleading attempts on the subjects presented here, it has nothing to do with GOOD FAITH again!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

While I'm not really affected by this user's habitual abuse, even I have some limits. No, I did not "remove WP:RS with a disruptive aim", I removed a passage about the background to the Second Vienna Award inserted into an article on the Székely Land, a place where it was contextually irrelevant. I specifically directed the user to transfer it to the other article if he so wished.

His diversion about the "community forum" comment can easily be countered by quoting the full context of that comment: "No. That is not how we operate on en WP. We also do not ping people we think might agree with us. That is called canvassing, and is very poor Wikiquette. I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary. Like I said, the obligation is on you, not me." That has to do with disruptive behavior and failure to grasp basic policies like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, not the status of Croatia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you may have valuable insight on this discussion, also, as I recall, you're quite well versed in the political history of the Balkan states and also WWII. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"a person who is quite incapable of ..."

One editor who is also an admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise) wrote a comment about me as a person (... a person who is quite incapable of ...-diff). It is important to take in consideration the context of this comment:

• it was written during my last ban appeal, by an editor involved in numerous disputes against me, with main goal to keep me banned
• this comment is only a continuation of their long-term practice to join (I think every) noticeboard discussion about my conduct to write comments with serious accusations against me without any or without serious evidence, sometimes even admitting "It's difficult to provide diffs..." (diff). The above mentioned comment is probably the first and only in which they tried to present at least one diff as evidence for their accusations - which is proven to be unjustified (diff)
• this comment is written by an editor with about 80,000 edits (link) who wrote it although they no doubt know that WP:NPA does not allow comments about other editors
• this editor is also an admin who are "expected to observe a high standard of conduct" per Wikipedia:Administrators

I respect and highly value work of Future Perfect at Sunrise at wikipedia and I don't propose that they should be blocked or banned or any serious sanction.

• If my perception is right, I would appreciate if Future Perfect at Sunrise would be warned to try to adhere to Wikipedia:No personal attacks more strictly when they interact with me and to:
  • never write comments me as a person
  • to always present serious evidence in form of diffs for serious accusations they write against me.
• If my perception is wrong, I would be glad that I made mistake and I would most sincerely apologize to everybody, especially to Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• An editor with a recently successful appeal at WP:AN should not be making this much noise: 8 August 2016 + 17 August 2016 + here. A longer extract from the diff in the OP is 'he is still the same old type of tendentious "polite POV warrior" – a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging other editor over content disagreements, but covers up his stonewalling under a fixed facade of never-failing formal "civility"'. Comments like that are common and reasonable when a case is discussed at an admin noticeboard—does Antidiskiminator imagine that their two-year topic ban was entirely spurious, and that anyone presenting a negative opinion about their appeal is guilty of a personal attack? If this pattern continues much longer, I would support an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Other aspects aside and pace Johnuniq, I agree with Antidiskriminator that editors, especially admins, shouldn't say in public that somebody is incapable of something. It's overly personal by a mile, and not merely "a negative opinion about their appeal". Future's wording was careless at best. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC).

• It is perfectly acceptable to say someone seems "incapable of" interacting with others constructively, editing the encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, refraining from original research, or anything else, as long as any such claim is based on evidence either already presented or readily presented on subsequent request. I think that if this ANI thread is not withdrawn promptly I would question whether a BOOMERANG should not happen and the earlier narrowly passed appeal be annulled per the actual close wording: The ban is lifted, per WP:ROPE and WP:AGF. If problems resume, return here to request reinstatement. Note that WP:ROPE is about giving users "enough rope to hang themselves", and does not mean that things should continue as though the sanction was never in place and the sanctioned user can go back to being treated as though nothing had ever happened: causing trouble with frivolous and disruptive attacks on other editors like is happening here immediately after such a close is a very poor sign. @Antidiskriminator: I strongly urge you to strike your above OP comment and withdraw this request so we can just pretend thisnever happened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• The only thing I'll say about this is that AD's behavious in this thread (and all its previous incarnations) exactly confirms the correctness of my negative opinion of him. Yes, he does seem incapable of behaving in any other way. Shrug. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• I honestly don't see a personal Attack here. Could it have been phrased with more tact? Probably. I don't see this as actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is a demonstration of the complete failure of Antid to get a point when validly made, but instead overreact to less-than-tactful comments. Specifically, this is an attempt to "correct the record" after the lifting of his TBAN. Is he going to start a thread about everyone that voted for the TBANs against him? Nothing actionable here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• I also see nothing actionable here, to the point that I was tempted to close this. However, to respond to the main part of the thread (which appears to be this diff), you stated yourself that context is everything, and indeed it is. Fut.Perf. supplied this diff in the following sentence to "a person who is quite incapable of constructively engaging other editor over content disagreements". In supplying this diff, I cannot see how it is possible to contrive the statement as a violation of NPA. Blunt yes, I cannot see it as an attack.

As it stands, I do not see administrator intervention being required. I also suggest that you leave the matter be from this point onward. Making noise about those who opposed your ban appeal is in very poor taste, and is most unwise. Leave it be. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Antidiskriminator, for someone who recently got out of a hole (topic ban lifted 16 August [113] with very little consensus), you seem intent on continuing to dig. Not only have the following editors voted to enact or retain your topic ban ([114], [115], [116], [117], [118]): Joy, Peacemaker67, Bobrayner, Now Look What You've Done, Dentalplanlisa, Diannaa, NellieBly, Nick-D, Ca2james, KoshVorlon, FormerIP, Mendaliv, The Banner, and Cullen328, you have repeatedly bothered Drmies by repeatedly accusing him of topic-banning you and other things [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124] and also by repeatedly trying to get him to agree that Fut. Perf was guilty of violating NPA: [125], [126] (and since you got no agreement there you took it here to ANI, even though I tried to warn you that this repeated re-litigating was not a good idea [127]). I think this ANI thread is more or less proving your detractors' points, and you may well be on your way to another topic ban or worse. (By the way, I was not involved in any of the topic ban discussions nor do I edit in that topic area.) Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Abdullsaed: is he likely to improve?

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

---

Would some other non involved admin please review his talkpage request for an unblock? I was the blocking admin. Pinging also MER-C (talk · contribs). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's quite evident from his unblock requests that his English skills are not sufficient to edit constructively. I would have indeffed him up front. MER-C 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

While I'm sure there is sincerity in their desire to contribute, there just isn't sufficient proficiency in English to do so. At a minimum, English proficiency needs to be at a near professional level. Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) See comment below.

I'm sorry -- you're saying that someone's English needs to be at "near-professional level" in order to contribute here? EEng 13:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Near-native may be more appropriate. Not all of us here are English professionals but most of us are fluent speakers. Zero^talk 14:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Still disagree, if you can figure out what it is they're saying, generally, that's all it takes. Grammar and tonal issues can be handled with a copy-edit provided that their writing isn't so bad as to be impossible to understand. If you can en-3 or better, you should be fine with limited to no assistance. There is a reason those ubx's say "can contribute with", it's because they're not precluded from contributing. We have people whose English is rather poor and who are difficult to understand and yet still contribute to the .en Wiki. There's a reason for that, one, nobody's going to ban based on poor English alone and two, poor English =/= poor contributions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bang on, Mr. Dude. EEng 17:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether he should or shouldn't be unblocked, I concur with Mr rnddude and EEng that a high level of proficiency in English is not necessary and that this editor's English appears to be good enough that he could contribute usefully. Bondegezou (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, you need en-3/4 or higher, but this user appears to be in en-2 territory. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that I should clarify my comment. By "professional", I mean within a professional or even employment environment. I certainly get that there are editors who do not have the nous to create 100% grammatically perfect constructs, I certainly would not imply I do but there is certainly an expectation that an editor would be able to get their point across to another editor with minimal interpretation or requests for clarification. Conversely, any replies to the editor should, in a perfect world, be understood factoring in things like nuance and inflection. Apologies if my phrasing caused any misunderstanding. Upon re-reading my initial comment and their edits, I'm striking my determination of their proficiency. However, I do stand by my initial comment that i believe they are sincere in their desire to contribute even if they're not necessarily going about it the right way. Blackmane (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd put the bar at en-3/4 as well. Capitalisation and punctuation should be correct most of the time. Anyway, this discussion is somewhat moot because this editor is now under a checkuser block for sockpuppetry. MER-C 12:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for snowball closure of a TfD to prevent large-scale disruption

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

---

Could someone close the following discussion at TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Braket? It's a request for the merger of two templates, and so far all the !votes have been "oppose". The reason it's desirable to close it sooner is that both templates are used for formatting and the TfD notices placed on them are making an unreadable mess of all tables that they appear in. There've been efforts to enclose the notice in <noinclude> tags to prevent that disruption but that has given rise to edit warring. I think a justified WP:SNOW closure would put an end to all that. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Doesn't this belong on WP:ANRFC instead? Pppery (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ooops. Well, my impression (gleamed from the text at the top of WP:AN, a page where WP:ANRFC is transcluded) was that that was the general place for the backlog of discussions to close, and not the place for issues that might have a tinge of urgency to them. Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. Perfectly reasonable to bring your concern here when so many editors at the discussion are disturbed by reader facing disruption caused by this issue. Of course we should not be allowing in-house management of templates to destroy the way articles are presented. I guess the unanticipated issue here was that this template displays multiple times in the same article, so having the notice displaying for each instance is just plain silly. In that case, the solution is IAR, noinclude it if that solves it, then alter either the "rule" or the Tfx template to prevent recurrence. Edit warring to a state which damages reader content is suboptimal. A SNOW close would address the immediate issue, but we also need to ensure that it does not recur. --Begoon ^talk 13:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of ANRFC (too slow, making it essentially the same as not existing), but I think technically this noticeboard is for user problems. I actually read the title of this thread and the first half of the OP comment before realizing that there wasn't some problem with off-wiki canvassing by the losing side in some very aggressive conflict, or something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

As I say, WP:NOTBURO, and from the top of this page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". I'd say bringing an issue affecting the display of many articles which cannot be fixed due to "rules"-bound edit warring is covered by that. I thank the OP for bringing it here and looking after our readers. --Begoon ^talk 16:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Angle bracket has been protected with the rationale "Highly visible template", but paradoxically this has set in stone the version without the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, precisely the one that was causing this disruption (and the protecting admin appears to have gone offline). can't we change back to the non-disruptive version? At least, it appears that the TfD notice has been made smaller, so now we aren't seeing the large-scale mess we used to. But still there is a mess [128]. Now aside from this particular case, I'm proposing a change in the TfD listing instructions that should hopefully reduce the occurrence of similar problems in future. Uanfala (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can disregard, should be fixed now. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. --Begoon ^talk 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This TfD has now been closed. Pppery (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism by User:2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74

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

---

This editor has been making grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages such as this, this and this. The nature of the comments is such that I think an immediate block would be in order. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Copied from talk page.- MrX 16:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding/harassment by User:Drmargi

I'd prefer to get this addressed in a visible way and I think this is the best place to do it.

Last week, I removed a report from WP:AIV that I considered a blatantly bad-faith attack on a well-meaning user. This report was restored by a non-admin user, User:Drmargi, with whom I'd never interacted before; she showed up at my talk to scold me for what she perceived as a bad act on my part, instigating a contentious and unhelpful discussion that ended here with almost no substantial reaction from Drmargi regarding my concerns with her behavior.

A week later, she showed up completely out of the blue at Lisa Murkowski to restore an edit that another editor and I both agreed was bad. The IP editor's edit was imperfect, mine was imperfect, and we collaborated to re-word the sentence, which is now accurate. When I asked Drmargi why she just kept reverting me instead of, you know, working on smoothing out the content, I was ignored.

Just now, for the third time in just under two weeks, Drmargi showed up in an ongoing contentious dispute, completely out of the blue, to oppose me. In this case, she reinserted bright-line vandalism and she's been here long enough to know it: per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, it doesn't matter if the text I'm reinserting is patently false: if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism. That she's attempting, for the third time in two weeks, to reinsert content that isn't accurate is the icing on the cake.

I've never started an interaction with this person. She's never started an interaction with me that wasn't confrontational, scolding, completely out-of-nowhere, and at a minimum somewhat wrongheaded. When I ask questions regarding my issues, she declines to explain how I'm wrong and just reverts me. She doesn't respond to anything I say regarding her behavior. What is the appropriate way to deal with this? I'm truly at a loss for how to react to someone who is clearly monitoring me, looking for opportunities to contentiously revert stuff. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor has a vivid imagination, a battleground approach to editing, and a tendency to exaggerate the actions of others. Moreover, his abuse of the term vandalism is becoming increasingly problematic (see User talk:KrakatoaKatie#Clarification and Shaunae Miller as two examples). He's going to attract the attention of other editors who are interested in the pages his patrols from what I'm guessing is the new edits list, particularly given his tendency assume the worst in other editors, throw around template warnings like Mardi Gras beads, and generally act like a Wikipedia hall monitor. He is currently at 4RR at Shaunae Miller, an article I was looking at this morning following the subject's race with Allyson Felix and the somewhat controversial outcome. He can flatter himself that I'm following him if he cares to, but frankly, it doesn't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"if it's a good-faith edit, repeated reverts of it constitute vandalism" - absolutely incorrect and you are dangerously close to being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: To be clear: this edit is not vandalism given its summary? You're looking at the contentious prose change, the blatantly dishonest edit summary, and that doesn't pass the definition of vandalism for you? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contentious = not vandalism (actually, it matches the source headline). Edit summary = not vandalism (it's just a default mobile interface edit summary) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I never said contentious edits constitute vandalism. Feel free to strike the implication that I did.

The edit summary was a falsehood that came after it was explained to SirBartleMerryworth why his previous edits weren't going to stand and why their summaries showed he was violating policy. You're taking AGF awfully far, given that the editor repeatedly (and, because of a bad lock on the page, successfully) inserted the false claim that Miller dove. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. You need to learn what constitutes vandalism here and only call edits vandalism that meet that definition. -- GB fan 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: You aren't the first to see the edit, see its contentious nature, see its blatantly false explanation, then, instead of reacting to my assertion that contentiously editing while using a false, insidious summary and refusing to discuss is vandalizing, just demand I learn what vandalism is. I haven't gotten a single person to react in any substantial way to this.

I'm asking again: The user is edit-warring. (So am I! I've explained how my edits are different! One example would be that I don't lie in my edit summaries!) The user re-inserted a contentious edit. The user declined, not for the first time, to discuss anything. The user used an edit summary that included a blatant falsehood. What are you thinking is going on here? He doesn't know what the word "typo" means? Why are we extending WP:AGF to a user who has spent days showing he's editing in bad faith? If you're going to respond to this, please do so with more than this sort of tossed-off response because it's not showing me how I'm wrong. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let me be clear. The user was not editing in bad faith and their edits were not vandalism. Continuing to call them vandalism is going to get you blocked. Relying on the 3RR exemption for vandalism for that kind of edit is going to get you blocked. I'm saying this to you as an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that your edits are not different. You both think you are improving the article and neither one of you is backing down or discussing it on the article talk page. The major concern here it's that you did not seen realize that the edits were not vandalism and continued to treat them as if they were. That is why you need to go back and learn what we call vandalism and then apply it. -- GB fan 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Don't worry. I can't go on forever and I promise I'm dropping the stick after this. My assertion was that if we were talking about one of the group of issues raised (inserting a contentious claim that three other editors tried to remove, refusing to discuss the claim, edit-warring, and explaining edits with bad summaries), it wouldn't be worth a big fight but combined, these issues constituted vandalism. Enough circumstantial evidence can get you a guilty verdict, etc., etc. I concede that my assertion was wrong. And while I know that I'm wrong, I still can't see how. Can you explain what I'm missing? What are you seeing that I don't see? I don't want to make the mistakes I've made today in the future. RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: What you're missing is WP:NOTVAND: "Disruptive editing or stubbornness", "Edit summary omission". Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. Attempting to change content so it matches the source is far, far from that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Okay. I'll use this as a resource for how I should react to iffy editing from now on. Although I'm sincerely worried. Since we're talking about a combination of four distinct problems and NOTVAND doesn't address two, I can tell you that it won't be easy for me to let users ignore repeated efforts to discuss or lie in edit summaries. I hope my reactions to editors displaying behaviors like this doesn't end up getting me blocked but I have no issue with anybody monitoring me. (Well, except Drmargi. I kind of wish she'd leave me alone.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're under no obligation to respond to other people's behaviour, good or bad, or refute lies. Check this out: User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values — Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

RunnyAmiga, NOTVAND provides you with a list of points to help you decide if an edit is a deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia. "A deliberate attempt to deface the encyclopedia" is the key. You are not a pre-programmed robot. You are capable of reason and making logical deductions. We get thousands of edits with no or incorrect edit summaries per day. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are outright vandalism. If you want to judge these edits you're going to have to engage the reasoning skills you possess and look at the edit. In this case, it should have taken you about five seconds to see the replacement word matched the word in the source link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is no one going to address the original problem being brought here or are we just going to get stuck on what is and isn't vandalism? RunnyAmga came here because they felt hounded by Drmargi. I'm not seeing that subject being broached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not much to the accusation, I think. And even if Drmargi looked at RunnyAmiga's edits in the future, I believe it would be justified to make sure RunnyAmiga isn't incorrectly calling valid edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand RunnyAmga's concerns - especially when it comes to Drmargi suddenly showing up out of the blue to revert or voice opposition for apparently no good reason. It's happened to me with the same editor and soon after disagreeing with them or calling them out on a behavior that was non-productive. I see a similarity and that's what brought me here to comment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN, Winkelvi, and Drmargi: It's not an issue that she appears out of nowhere. I do that all the time via, you guessed it, the recent changes page. (Also the pending changes page.) A bunch of people appeared out of nowhere in this very thread. The issue I had was that she appears out of nowhere specifically to confront me and undo my edits, doesn't walk back attacks she made (in, you guessed it, edit summaries) when I conclusively prove her wrong like at Lisa Murkowski, and categorically refuses to respond to anything I say, whether it's by reverting my attempts to discuss issues at her talk page or by just ignoring my entreaties to discuss things elsewhere. It's strange: her first reply in this thread, under my edit that started it, isn't a reply to me. It's a reply to the admins who hadn't even said anything yet.

I said on my talk that I encourage attempts to rein me in if anybody with more knowledge or experience than me thinks I'm getting out of line, but NeilN could have concluded my "accusation" didn't have much substance only by not reviewing the various times she's showed up out of the blue to confront. The Murkowski thing should have been the dealbreaker and I'm still owed an apology for how badly she behaved there. Instead, when I cooled off, re-worked the sentence with the third editor, and finalized the prose that solved every issue that all three of us had raised, she vanished. So yeah: if you have more knowledge than me about things, correct me when I'm wrong. That includes almost everybody in this thread but based on behavior and errors, it obviously excludes one person. And before anybody starts talking about years at Murkowski's page or whether I'm allowed to remove borderline-vandal reports at AIV, please know that this is regarding behavior, not content. It's interesting that she can repeatedly ignore at least a half dozen attempts to discuss and collaborate and fix things but when I mention that she does that, it's an "accusation" and "[t]here's not much to" it. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know, Winklevi, you have a habit of turning up any time something like this happens or when there's a contentious discussion that I'm party to, to grind some imaginary ax. Meanwhile, I prefer to avoid you like the plague. So, who's hounding whom? I'm done with this nonsense. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a problem: This is a rollbacker that apparently doesn't understand what rollback is for. RunnyAmiga was granted rollback less than a week ago and has used it multiple times in ways other than to revert clear vandalism. His contributions are littered with it. I believed I was clear on what vandalism is in that discussion on my talk page, but I guess I wasn't since Neil had to explain it again. I'd like to know why I shouldn't remove the rollback privilege right .now. Katie^talk 21:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support revocation of Rollback due to repeated instances in which the user has demonstrated that they do not understand what the privilege is for. Good call, KrakatoaKatie. As far as I can see there is no real "hounding" issue here at all, so once the right is revoked per WP:BOOMERANG this thread can be closed. Zero^talk 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support giving people an opportunity to rectify errors. I also support young, ambitious editors like Patient Zero not jumping on noticeboard bandwagons as they pass by in order to lead a song of "punity". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My age does not in any way affect my judgement, Winkelvi. Besides, this is a preventative measure as it prevents further misuse of a tool. Zero^talk 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as your age: If you say so. As far as your concept of Wiki-prevention: So can talking to someone and asking them to be more careful. As far as you missing the point, here's my final comment on it in this thread: I find your recent zeal to immediately take the extreme route with certain editors disturbing, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet we both reached the same conclusion re Hawkeye75 Winkelvi. When Widr granted RunnyAmiga the privilege he clearly outlined the policy page on what it is not to be used for; that to me is enough with regards to an explanation of the tool. There is also enough evidence for me to decide that this user cannot be trusted. And no, I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern. Zero^talk 16:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"I am not disturbed, although thank you for your concern." I hope you will re-read what I wrote (a little slower this time and without defensive glasses on) and realize that isn't what I said at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I thought we were done with that edit from a month ago; I issued a friendly clarification to the originating editor, asked the other editor why, didn't get a response and moved on, but RA is still harassing Drmargi about this? Meanwhile, the edit made to Shaunae Miller is clearly just two people trying to work out the wording and not even anywhere near the neighborhood of vandalism. I have people following my edits (based on topic areas and the like) and sometimes they run into conflicts with me but I'm not going to fly off because of that; RunnyAmiga needs to learn to work with others here and learn to realize that they must do so. Going through some of their edits there's no indication they know how to use rollback, and going by the responses on their user talk page they really need to build up their composure; responding to anyone like this, even someone likely trolling until the block applied is completely uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 11:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

IP 31.52.4.146 - page moves and personal attacks

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

---

• 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs)

This IP has had, to put it bluntly, a shocking history of attempting to do page moves via WP:RM. In short, they are poorly thought out, offer no rationale for the move and as far as I know, every single one of them has been shot down with snow closes. Here's a taster:

• Gods of Egypt
• Ghostbusters
• Rat race
• Source code
• The Matrix
• Shrek
• Penguins of Madagascar
• IMDb

Those are just some of them. Warnings have been placed on their talkpage, which were then removed with this message. They've recently posted this and this on user talkpages. Serious WP:CIR issues IMO and I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• • User needs to be blocked, IMHO. I have also seen all their disruptive and wasteful moves. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, User: ‎Bbb23...many warnings and long-term CIR indeed (though today is the first they have also gone off the INCIVIL deep end). DMacks (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 for looking into this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks by Mogomaniac

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

---

User:Mogomaniac has recently enganged in repeated personal attacks against me and other editors (it's not always clear, who he is insulting) in edit summaries on SummerSlam (2016). Since his insults all happened in edit summaries, a list of his contributions will serve as evidence. (Or take a look at [[129]] to see how his PA-laden summaries compare to those of other editors.)

He has already been warned that disruptive behaviour and personal attacks in particular, may get him blocked on 01:01, 21 August 2016 by Sekyaw and has continued to insult others, [130].

Mogomaniac also has a history of disruptive behaviour in his eight months on Wikipedia: He was blocked for a week in May and just barely escaped another block in July as administrators considered him inactive by then [131].

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Mogomaniac also blanked and refactored the filing editor's report, whilst calling him a baby. Which goes, perhaps, someway towards demonstrating its validity... _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Alparslan Kuytul

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

---

This article was recently deleted after this AfD. It's been re-created, so I tagged it for G4. The tag was removed without comment, so I tagged it again, and again, and again. It's been de-tagged for the umpteenth time and I'm now bored of playing revert-wars with this bloke's Turkish fan club. Could a sysop please kindly delete and salt?—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as G4. It's now on my watchlist and should it be recreated again without dealing with the reasons for deletion it can be salted. --Michig (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Thejoebloggsblog edit warring

There has been a long term problem with the user:Thejoebloggsblog with their editing behaviour in relation to Australian rules football and the Port Adelaide Football Club, the behaviour mainly consists of edit warring and they will revert to their preference and very rarely discuss the issue with other editors. The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored. Because WP:AFL does not have a lot of active participants, his behaviour goes largely unnoticed or nothing is done about it, I can't speak for other editors, but I know I am growing very tired of trying to improve pages and getting reverted by Thejoebloggsblog and then either getting no response from trying to discuss it or a response where the discussion will not go anywhere and is partly antagonistic.

Behaviour at Australian Football League
23–26 August 2015

• Thejoebloggsblog removal of content, revert by Flickerd, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by @Jevansen:, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by Flickerd, revert by Thejoebloggsblog, revert by @Jenks24:

6 September 2015–trying to redefine VFL/AFL by separating premierships

• [132], [133], [134], [135], all reverted by Jenks24 [136]

23 September 2015–same as above

• [137], [138], [139], all reverted by Flickerd [140]

1 October 2015–same as above (note VFL changed name to AFL in 1990)

• [141], [142], both reverted by Jevansen [143]

28 April–5 May 2016

• Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships starting from [144] reverted by Jevansen [145]
  
• Another long string of edits, this time removing premierships again, reverted by Jevansen [146]
  
• 2 edits separating VFL/AFL premierships [147], [148], both reverted by @The-Pope: [149]
  
• Long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by The-Pope [150]
  
• The-Pope leaves message at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#VFL is not separate to AFL)
  
• Thejoebloggsblog ignores and does another long string of edits separating VFL/AFL premierships, reverted by Jenks24 [151]
  
• Revert by Thejoebloggsblog with unusual edit summary [152]
  
• Revert by Jenks24 with link to WP:BRD [153]
  
• Jenks begins discussion on talk page at (Talk:Australian Football League#Club Table)
  
• Thejoebloggsblog does another long string of edits without proper discussion at talk page, reverted by Jenks24 [154]
  

There hasn't been any similar edits since this by Thejoebloggsblog, but I am referring to this behaviour as I have had some issues on List of Port Adelaide Football Club players recently where if the issue isn't resolved now, then there will most likely be a repeat of the long-term edit war at Australian Football League. List of Port Adelaide Football Club players was very long and large before I split the page [155], I saw a reasonable split as Port Adelaide competed in the SANFL until 1996 and the split page is at List of Port Adelaide Football Club players (before 1997) representing all those players, Port Adelaide then changed leagues and joined the Australian Football League in 1997 and List of Port Adelaide Football Club players is representative of that, all appropriate steps were taken in this split and there was a hatnote leading to the split page, there was no irrational removal of content. I did a more in depth explanation at Thejoebloggsblog's talk page (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#List of Port Adelaide Football Club players) I understand it was very short and brash, but I have tried to be nice before and my explanations/requests go largely ignored, and I'm growing tired of it.

Thejoebloggsblog's has been reverting the edits without explanation [156], [157], [158], Jevansen agreed the split was reasonable [159], and Thejoebloggsblog reverted today [160]. Although it was not strictly within 24 hours, that is 4 reverts, and I have a strong suspicion that Thejoebloggsblog will wait a couple of days before reverting so he is not in direct violation of WP:3RR, however it's still edit warring without explanation.

Thejoebloggsblog is a supporter of Port Adelaide and I feel there are issues with WP:Ownership on his behalf where a part of my explanation was "please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" and his response was "I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" I don't know if understands the process of a split, but there wasn't removal of Port Adelaide players as he alludes to, they are all at the split page.

I don't know what the solution is as I do acknowledge Thejoebloggsblog does do some good work on Wikipedia, but this behaviour has to stop, multiple people have tried to warn him about trying to redefine the leagues and editing/reverting without explanation but to little avail. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"The issue mainly stems from them trying to redefine the VFL/AFL league without any factual basis and other editors have tried to inform him about this, but it's always ignored." - Flickerd

'"please take into consideration that I am trying to improve the article and have it appropriately represented, and understand that you can't just have it the way you want it" - Flickerd

"I want Port Adelaide players listed. Is that too much to ask?" - My response (List of Port Adelaide Football Club players).

The Port Adelaide Football Club is an exception in the AFL as it did not originate in the VFL but carries 146 years of history. All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed but because Port Adelaide played in the SANFL and not the VFL for some reason we are prevented from having our senior players listed on our own club page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Further example of trying to redefine the league, VFL/AFL is the same league, all that happened was it was renamed, SANFL/AFL is not the same as VFL/AFL, so there isn't an exemption as was the case with the categories (User talk:Thejoebloggsblog#Port Adelaide players). The 12 clubs that competeted in the VFL prior to the rename did not have to change leagues, whereas Port Adelaide did. Flickerd (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"All other clubs that predate the AFL have all their senior players listed". No they don't. The since-1990 AFL is exactly the same league as the pre-1990 VFL. There is no distinction in official AFL records. The List of Richmond Football Club players and List of Western Bulldogs players don't have their players who played for those clubs in the VFA before 1908 or 1924 respectively listed. They only have their VFL/AFL players listed. Overseas, major clubs often split their lists by appearances, such as List of Liverpool F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances), which I personally don't like. Splitting by league/era is entirely acceptable and preferable in this case. The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, this looks a great deal like a content dispute that really needs some dispute resolution. Has this been tried? Also, all participants should be warned that continued edit warring is obviously unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Serb1914

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

---

He is topic banned from all edits relating to the balkans, and has edited Serbian related articles, which is a balkan country. This is in clear violation of his topic ban, please block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year (again) as a result of their topic ban breaches (as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction in accordance with the topic ban). Nick (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

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