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

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages

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

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [1] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [2] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [3]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [4] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [5][6][7]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[8]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [9][10]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [11] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [12]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [13] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [14]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[15] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [16] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [17][18] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [19]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [20][21] contrary to what the scholar said [22], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [23] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [24] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. [25] [26]Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• • We have agreed to block editor EthiopianHabesha, can admins intervene. Duqsene (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The other two threads about disruptive editing in the Horn of Africa area have been archived. Is there any intent to take any action on this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I am wondering about that too. EthiopianHabesha has been inactive after January 24, but only after repeating some of the same behavior at Talk:Oromo people and the article. I am wading through the paperwork to petition adding Horn of Africa space to AC/DS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would very much support the general principle of that idea. I have a little familiarity (only a little) with Ethiopia and the Oromo people, and they may well be one of the most politically controversial current topics related to that country, along with matters of how the Amhara and other groups have historically treated and regarded them. Having said that, I have no idea of how to exactly phrase a specific request for DS for the topic. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this -- late, as usual -- & as probably the one active Wikipedian who knows the most about Ethiopia & all of the potential problems for WP it poses I wish someone had dropped me a note sooner. All I can say at this point is wow. And admiration for @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Doug Weller: for trying to sort this matter out.

The problems with any Wikipedia article on Ethiopia will be as follows: (1) Lack of easily accessible information on many of the subjects; (2) potential ethnic/nationalist/religious disagreements (e.g., look at the article history for Demographics of Ethiopia & see how the numbers for the numbers of the Amhara & Oromo ethnic groups are routinely manipulated -- some folks in that country insist that the majority are & always will be the Amhara); (3) a large population who are just learning about the Internet; (4) a lack of understanding in Ethiopia of Western concepts such as "we can agree to disagree". (Yeah, #4 might sound racist, but having read much Ethiopian history I've found many disagreements over beliefs & ideology in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).

In the case of Oromo people, there is a lot of bad blood not only between the Oromo & the dominant Amhara & Tigray peoples, but the Oromo & other ethnic groups. Both sides have made some unsustainable claims about the other, & both sides have done some bad things to each other -- although the Amhara/Tigray have had the upper hand for the last 100-150 years. There are some errors & omissions in the article (I fixed one glaringly obvious one, which I suspect had slipped thru due to the edit wars ongoing), & once things have settled down a bit I'd be happy to provide some advice on how & where to improve the article -- with reliable sources. For example, if one has access to JSTOR one also has access to the invaluable Journal of Ethiopian Studies, which I didn't have before I grew tired of being the only contributor to articles on Ethiopia. (Another is Annales d'Ethiopie at persee.fr)

So @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion is quite reasonable. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question to @Llywrch:: I regret to say, given awareness of other controversial national topics like in China and Turkey, for instance, that there have been and still are a number of sources, including even in China academic journals, which might be considered pretty biased here. I have access to at least some books by Brill and (I think) some Ethiopian journals. I'm fairly sure the Brill books are reliable, but is there maybe a question regarding the real reliability of any of the Ethiopian journals here like there is in China and a few smaller countries? John Carter (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The easiest answer to your question would be that it's not relevant to WP:AN/I. But since it is a question Admins will need to know if discretionary measures are applied, I think it should be answered for reference.

First of all, there is practically no publishing industry in Ethiopia. I do own a few books published there, but they have been published in partnership with Western presses so I can't offer an opinion about the quality or reliability of books published in Ethiopia. As for academic journals published there, I have seen a journal of Ethiopian medicine (which can be found online), but I couldn't say how reliable its articles are since I know very little about medicine. In the area of journals on history, the two I mentioned above are very reliable.

Most Ethiopian academics are part of the Ethiopian diaspora, teaching at a university & publishing in North America or Europe -- so their reliability can be judged that way. There are two academics who work & live in Ethiopia that I am familiar with who are reliable: Bahru Zewde, who teaches at the University of Addis Ababa, & Richard Pankhurst, who has lived most of his life in Ethiopia & has written a library of books on that country. (The biggest problem I've encountered with Pankhurst's works is that he tends to reuse large parts of his earlier books in his later ones.)

Now if your question is about the Ethiopian news media, the answer to that is simple: Ethiopia is at the bottom of the list of countries in terms of press freedom, & in 2008 or 2009 went so far as imposing severe restrictions on NGOs about commenting on conditions inside that country. Many times, looking for information on contemporary events in Ethiopia, I could only find information in blogs or social websites -- which don't meet Wikipedia standards, despite my sense they told the truth. I did quote the official Ethiopian news sources for some details, but in a careful manner, & only about things I felt were verifiable, e.g. "ENA reports that the government opened a new hospital in this woreda" -- one could visit the site & verify if a hospital actually was built & opened; if not, well then it's clear the official news agency was lying.

I need to point out that this threatens to offer a simplistic view of Ethiopian government public relations. On one hand, in many cases the information I looked for simply did not exist: government websites were often little more than a series of IIS templates someone in the IT department uploaded during an afternoon & no one ever looked at again. Government ministers rarely had CVs available online, let alone official biographies. Ethiopian society still relies heavily on oral sources of information -- with all of its weaknesses -- which means there is no reliable sources for facts or assertions that are commonly accepted as true. On the other hand, I found the website of the Central Statistical Agency, which handles the Ethiopian censuses, very professional & surprisingly accurate when you consider what they had to work with; I fully trust their census reports, which I used as much as possible in the relevant articles.

To repeat myself, the information about is often incomplete, very uneven in quality, & requires some experience to not only find but understand & use. And I haven't even touched on the countless rivalries that permeate that country, which can lead the involved parties to lie; fortunately, many of those are not very sophisticated in their misrepresentations & can be caught in their lies. (On the other hand, I found several people with personal ties to Ethiopia understood very well how to participate on Wikipedia & were very constructive editors. I only wish I knew how I could have retained them.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• It'll soon be a month since this thread began. Is this going anywhere? EEng 05:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Eventually, yeah. Ethiopia as a broad topic is, more or less, as Llywrch indicates above, a bit of a mess, and we are trying to find some ways to resolve it. Understandably, however, with such a big mess (about 100 million people and 80 ethnic groups in the country) it can reasonably take a while to resolve. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Several of the editors who were the subject of this and other AN/I discussions regarding editing of Horn of Africa articles seem not to have edited since late January. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata discussions and fallout

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

---

On a number of Wikidata discussions and related articles, things get somewhat heated ("disruptive" is the word used by some). This includes discussions like Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (already protected once as a result) and its talkpage, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Infobox person/Wikidata (with an edit war about which comments to include in a hatting) and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Template:Wikidata image; and articles like Tom Fenchel, Sabina Abdullayeva and Alain Supiot.

More, uninvolved eyes on these pages would be welcome, also to get more input on the actual discussions.

No admin action in the sense of blocks or the like is requested, just some pre-emptive cooler heads who can lead discussions into calmer waters. I have not informed others of this discussion, if you start discussing individual editors here then please inform them where needed. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add John S. Duncan to the list of problem articles as well. Fram (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, too late, User:RexxS is going off the rails at the moment. You can see the events at User talk:Fram, User talk:RexxS, John S. Duncan and Talk:John S. Duncan. Basically, he has reverted the article four times now in a few days time (if I count correctly), meanwhile repeatedly removing information from the infobox (superficially because it is unsourced, but in reality only things I added, and not the unsourced stuff added by others), causing the appearance of a duplicate website in the infobox for a while, all without adding any actual information to the article. Meanwhile, I have corrected information, added sources (despite his claim that the information was unverifiable), generally improved enwiki. It is quite annoying to get these efforts reverted time and again by someone whose only two interests at the moment are "keep the Wikidata infobox in the article at all costs" and "revert Fram at all costs". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram is edit-warring on John S. Duncan to restore his personal preference of an infobox that does not draw data from Wikidata:

• edit summary: Expanded infobox - 09:12, 25 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Undid revision 761950843 by RexxS (talk). Your edit removed the alma mater and duplicated the website. That's not an expansion, that's vandalism. Please stop - 13:15, 26 January 2017
• edit summary: Improving enwiki by removing easily sourced information, and misusing an article here to promote your precious Wikidata? Your goal clearly is to get us to work together to improve enwiki. Definitely. - 13:24, 26 January 2017‎
• edit summary: Stop making totally unnecessary edits which add nothing at all to the article or the infobox. If you don't do any active work to improve the article, don't try to impose your infobox version which already caused problems yesterday - 13:56, 26 January 2017

That's four reverts of {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{Infobox person}} in two days, three of them in the last four hours. Is that a crossing of the "bright line" at WP:3RR? There's also the personal attack of calling my edit 'vandalism'. From WP:Vandal: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism ... Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful"

Actually, I don't want to see him sanctioned, I just want him to stop destroying the development work that Mike Peel has been doing. The Wikidata-aware infobox was added by Mike Peel, who is working to improve the functionality of infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. That is specifically permitted by a decisive RfC that Fram disagrees with, and he's been spending much of his time in attempting to prevent any implementation of that RfC.

Fram complains of issues with the use of Wikidata-aware infoboxes, and it's true that there will be teething problems when something new is introduced, but he does not accept that any issues that have arisen have been fixed promptly. He seems fixated on rolling back any progress in data-aware infoboxes. I'm more than happy to work with anyone to constructively improve the functionality of infoboxes, but Fram's attitude of "no change, no matter what" is becoming disruptive to good faith efforts of editors like Mike Peel to improve Wikipedia by making use of the resource at Wikidata. I would like to see Fram warned to calm down and discuss the problems he sees – I have proven time and again that I'm willing to address issues that are brought to my attention constructively. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first link is not a revert, it's an edit. I added the alma mater and his age. The version before your edits[27] was quite different. So that makes three reverts in two days, not four.

• On the other hand, you reverted first user:Nikkimaria,
• then you reverted me with the false edit summary "expanded infobox even further" when the only result was the removal of the alma mater field, and a duplication of the website due to an earlier error in the infobox Wikidata, which you would have seen had you checked your edit.
• After I undid this edit of yours which clearly made the infobox a lot worse, you did a third revert, claiming "My edit did not duplicate the website and "Alma mater" is unsourced. Please stop adding unsourced content to this article". Too bad that 14 minutes earlier you had already made an edit which said [28] "sorry Mike that duplicates the website when a local value is present - see Talk:John S. Duncan". So you were very well aware that your edit duplicated the website, but decided to lie about it.
• I then [29] readded the alma mater to the infobox, while also adding sources for it in the article. Yet, you once again reverted the infobox to remove the alma mater field.

Basically, over this edit war, I have constantly improved the article, while all RexxS has done is reverting back to older, less complete versions only because they had his precious Wikidata infobox, and because apparently anything unsourced I had touched needed removal (but anything unsourced added by anyone else could remain). meanwhile making it worse by spreading alternative facts in edit summaries and on the talk page ("That's a lie. The reason that {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} removed alma mater was that it was unsourced. It was not a decision on my part.", even though he removed the field from the infobox three times).

Can someone please explain to RexxS that we are here to make our articles better, not worse? Fram (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Peel changed the infobox from {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} on 22:16, 20 January 2017 - your first edit to the article reverted the wikidata version back to the original version. So yes, it was a revert. The fact that you also added an unsourced piece of information (alma mater was not sourced until today) to the infobox at the same time does not excuse you from edit-warring. You still seem to be intent on defending your behaviour by wiki-lawyering. You reverted to the previous version of that infobox four times in two days and three times in four hours. If that's not edit-warring, I'd like to know what is. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was edit-warring to keep an improved version of the article. You were edit warring to... to do what exactly? To remove all progress if it was made by me on flimsy grounds? If you were worried about unsourced info in the infobox, you would have simply removed the infobox, since nothing in it was sourced. But that was never your intention or interest, obviously. I have repeatedly improved the article and the infobox; you have not made a single improvement to the article. Fram (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been significantly put off editing as a result of this campaign by Fram against the work I was doing with this infobox. It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted, and my attempts to improve things and listen to feedback are sidelined by further criticism from Fram with a very anti-Wikidata agenda. Unfortunately I also have other issues at the moment in real life that need more urgent attention, so I haven't been able to keep up with Fram's verbosity.

I should add that I haven't added {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to *any* articles that weren't already using it while this has been going on, I've just been working to improve the infobox so that it supports more options and data. A lot of my edits (such as the one RexxS links to above) were just due to me changing the infobox template from opt-out to opt-in, and updating the calls to it in articles so that they kept their opt-in status, nothing more. Most of the calls to this template were added by other users already working on the articles. Some of the articles that Fram has been edit-warring over have now had *more* edits about the infobox than about the article content! Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how my edits have hampered your attempts to improve things. Shouldn't I have made edits like this one? Then please explain why not. Is this not a serious improvement of the article? There are more than 300 instances of the infobox left, you can experiment with it as much as you like (assuming that even has to be done in the mainspace in the first place). I have not pinged you, not bothered you with questions. Am I not allowed to improve these articles simply because you have edited them? I have not done any raw reverts of your additions, all I have done is (often significantly) improve a few articles. Like you said, you didn't even add these infoboxes in the first place, you only did a minor change on then, so why are you so bothered when a few get removed by me while I improve the article (e.g. by switching to a different, better suited infobox which doesn't have the /Wikidata version). Fram (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would think that nominating the template for deletion that Mike's currently working on counts as having "hampered your attempts to improve things". No? I really hope we don't lose a editor of Mike's calibre over this crusade of Fram's. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going with his "It seems that every time I log in, I find that my edits have been reverted " comment. And we can hardly not nominate a template for deletion because it might cause us to lose an editor. Everything you do here can be edited, reverted, removed, deleted... That's part of the deal of editing Wikipedia. Some people want to keep the template, some agree with deleting it, so it at least isn't uncontroversial or just me who has a problem with it (and neither is it only you or Mike Peel who defends it). That's why we have things like TfD. Fram (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to edits like this one - where Infobox Person/Wikidata is unnecessarily converted to the non-Wikidata one. Of which there were a number, and you are still doing this kind of edit. The ones you've linked to here look good to me, as they're switching to a more appropriate infobox than Infobox Person. The others were just POINTy. Add that to the discussion you started about the template and one of my edits (without even bothering to ping me), followed quickly by nominating the template for deletion, in both cases. This has felt like a systematic attack, without respite to work through with the (sometimes valid) issues you were raising. I'm grateful to RexxS and others for having much higher capacity to deal with these than I have right now. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is actually made worse or impossible by edits like [30] or [31]? The Wikidata infobox is still active on hundreds of articles, so any test you want to do can proceed. On the other hand, both articles were improved with my edit. On the first one, the Wikidata infobox has been reinstated, with the loss of many information as result (the only field that is fetched from Wikidata is one that was first sourced, by me, on enwiki when I was improving the article). The Margaret Fell article has in the Wikidata version of the infobox a link to the Wikidata item "theologian", because according to the template enwiki doesn't have an article theologian. My version had more information in the infobox, and internal links to an article instead of a link to a Wikidata item. Fram (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that you are continuing to remove the Wikidata-enabled version of the infobox from articles, I'm assuming that you won't stop until there are no more articles using the infobox. The Wikidata version only has added functionality compared to the main one, so you could easily have made the changes you have without changing the template used - but you've been pointedly not doing that. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

At the speed I am removing these, it will take a few months before even the current ones would be gone, never mind any that may have been added since then. "The Wikidata version only has added functionality"? No, it also has visual clutter, and links to Wikidata items where we have our own articles which don't get recognised by Wikidata, and so on. It also is a template which get changed often, resulting in errors like your duplicate website yesterday. Having such experimental templates on too many articles isn't a good idea. And the current version, where unsourced entries don't get copied, may seem better, but the quality of the sourcing at Wikidata is not good enough to trust these (e.g. the birth date of José Eduardo Agualusa is taken from Wikidata, and has a source there; but Wikidata has a full date, while the source only has the year). Coupled with the fact that most editors don't watch Wikidata changes (so don't know when the values in the infobox on their articles may be changed), that Wikidata changes are rather hard to interpret in the watchlist anyway, that the sources on Wikidata don't get shown here, and that using the Wikidata infobox we may easily get entries in the infobox which don't match the text of the article, which is not what infoboxes are for, and I think there are enough reasons to not have this on too many articles (if any) and the claim that it only adds functionality seems a bit optimistic. Fram (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You have good points here. *Please* raise them individually on the talk page for the template, and we can work through them. Things like visual clutter can easily be dealt with, if discussed sensibly rather than edit-warring. I agree that experimental templates on too many articles isn't good, but you could have raised that point to start with so we could figure out how to minimize any interim disruption while testing (e.g., through the sandbox that has now been set up). I'm making more mistakes than usual at the moment because of the disruptive way this discussion has been going. "most editors don't watch Wikidata changes" needs a citation. I'm happy to help with problems with specific articles, just ping me to let me know of the problem and I'll have a look. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Please have a look at José Eduardo Agualusa again - it should look better now. Let me know if you spot any similar issues and I'll look into them. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fram, could you stop forum-shopping your anti-Wikidata crusade? Don't you think Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and the TfDs you started are already generating enough heat? Only you can prevent meatball:ForestFires :) —Kusma (t·c) 15:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't about pro- or antiwikidata, this is about editor behaviour. Fram (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you could moderate your behaviour, it would be much appreciated. —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So I should stop improving these articles because it puts Mike Peel off and because RexxS is going to revert back anyway? And meanwhile RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries? Your comments seem to be a bit one-sided (but then again, you wanted to keep the template because it is "worth it for raising awareness of Wikidata", so I shouldn't be surprised that that bias comes through here as well). Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • "RexxS can continue spouting nonsense on talk pages and in edit summaries". Fram, you need to keep it civil here. I'm prepared to put up with your smears, insults and personal attacks only for so long, before I have to conclude that sanctioning you is the only way to get some respite from your personal animosity. As an admin, you should be setting an example, not trying to drag the discussion down to the level of the gutter. --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
          • If you don't want criticism of e.g. your edit summaries or your many mistakes in describing what happened, then don't make so many errors. Claims like [32] "Claims from Wikidata are not automatically imported by this infobox, but filtered to remove any unsourced information.", which wasn't true at the time you made it (and which is a basic asspect of the infobox), should not need correcting by me. Can I also point out that you said at the TfD "Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs is nothing but a collection scare-mongering and outright untruths, initiated by the nominator of this AfD, as part of his campaign against Wikidata." If you want a civilized, ault discussion, it might help if you don't dismiss the concerns of others, many illustrated with examples, in such an extremely dismissive way. Accepting that both sides have good reasons for their position is the first step in understanding each other. Dismissing everything the other said in such negative terms is unlikely to get any results. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
            • You're still defending that attack page you created at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs. I commented there in good faith, thinking it was a genuine effort to gather neutral, accurate information, giving both pros and cons as I saw them, until you removed my positive comments and allowed complete untruths like "Wikidata edits violate WP:V and WP:BLP" to stand and gather traction. If you want a civilised, adult discussion, you're going to have to stop your mud-slinging campaign to denigrate the use of Wikidata in Wikipedia. Similarly, I'll ask you to consider how your comment applies to yourself, because you've been dismissing everything said by the people you perceive as the other side. I've bent over backwards to accommodate concerns raised and I've solved every single one over the last several days. You've never once acknowledged the efforts I've put in to make sure that a work in progress is able to meet your highly-demanding standards. I understand you perfectly well. I'm always open to constructive suggestions, but your only aim is to completely destroy the work that has been done in making use of the resources at Wikidata. Change your tack and look for common ground if you want to get any results, because I'll oppose you all the way if you persist in trying to roll back the clock to 2012. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, I have a lot of respect for you (no, seriously I do, you do a lot of good work around here in protecting the encyclopedia's integrity and factual accuracy and to deny that would be batshit insane), but the only reason I am not blocking you for edit-warring and personal attacks is because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and must recuse myself from any administrative actions involving you, except to say (to both you and RexxS) - stop this, now, or it will end in tears. Or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And the fact that I edit warred while improving articles, and the other side in the edit war reverted while making the articles worse, plays no role in your position? That's a bit disappointing. Fram (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought you can't edit war, even while right. I guess being an admin does have its privileges. As for your being disappointed, I'm not sure why. Ritchie never said the other side wasn't edit warring, he merely pointed out your edit warring and personal attacks. I'd take his advice and ease up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, he said I would get blocked, and RexxS not, even though I improved articles and he didn't (and he didn't refrain from personal attacks either). Anyway, it is rather clear that asking here for some extra eyes before things escalate is fruitless. Fram (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's another unpleasant calumny. I've been improving articles at the same rate as you have, although in many cases, I've been adding information and references to Wikidata, so that the improvements can be shared by all the other language Wikipedias as well here on the English Wikipedia. I've also been responding to the technical issues brought to me, like making the source filter on by default, updating the documentation, and improving the capitalisation in infobox fields like "occupation" - see Paul Sabatier (theologian) and my complementary edits on Wikidata as an example from tonight. It's not appropriate to dismiss other editors' work simply because they choose to contribute in a different way from you. --RexxS (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Allright, I looked at Paul Sabatier. You added sources (on Wikidata) for his date of birth and death. The problems are manifold though. You couldn't find a reference for his post as professor in Strasbourg: this can easily be sourced to [33]. Hmm, that source gives different dates than your source, what's up? On Wikidata, you made a lot of changes[34], but I have no idea how you actually verified them. You added the place and date of death from Britannica, which is of course a very good source. But you sourced a 1928 date of death to the 1911 Britannica. You used the same source for his citizenship (not really stated in the article, but probably correct), and his alma mater. You claim it is the University of Paris, while in reality it was the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Paris. And in your idal world, these errors would have spread to 7 (current versions of the article) or 300 languages at once. I wouldn't call your changes to the Sabatier article "improvements". Fram (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source for Paul Sabatier's professorship - I've been able to give a decent reference for university teacher (Q1622272) in his entry. However, the dates of birth and death in BnF seem a little off: 9 August 1858 – 5 March 1928, whereas my 1989 Britannica gives 3 August 1858 – 4 March 1928. It's not enough to worry about, but it shows one of those sources is inaccurate. Anyway, I'm also grateful for spotting my faux pas with the 11th edition. I had fully intended to check in my 15th edition, but it was clearly too late at night to be trying to remember. I've tidied up Paul Sabatier (Q885424) and added the Britannica source to the article, because I don't think the place of death was sourced in any of the other references. I'm fairly certain that a source that states that his brother Auguste Sabatier was French is sufficient to imply Paul Sabatier was was also a French citizen, would you agree? The "educated at University of Paris" was already in Wikidata ("imported from English Wikipedia") when I arrived at the entry, so it's simply untrue to state that it was my claim. I was able, however, to correct that error today in the Wikidata entry and I'm pleased you corrected our article here. The error I made, referencing the 11th edition instead of the 15th edition lasted less than 24 hours and is unlikely to have broken 300 other projects in the meantime. Sadly the University of Paris mistake has been around for much longer, and does give weight to the argument that more editors are needed to comb through Wikidata for these sort of problems. It's comforting to realise that had Mike's infobox project not taken place, both Paul Sabatier (theologian) and Paul Sabatier (Q885424) would not have had such much-needed attention. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"it's simply untrue to state that it was my claim." You "sourced" it, giving it validity and visibility. So yes, it is your claim. "Citizenship" should only be used in an infobox when it is somehow surprising or disputed, not here. Sabatier's place of death was sourced by me in the article, no idea why you claimed otherwise. Your "source" for his corrected alma mater is "Encyclopedia Britannica", no edition or anything added. Right... Without this infobox, we could have spent time correcting articles on one site (enwiki) without multiple reverts, errors in infoboxes, and a general waste of much time. All this project has shown is that instead of simplifying things, it makes editing necessary on both sides, duplicating most of the effort, and with some editors more intent on protecting their project than improving enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I merely added a reference to an already existing claim, so no, it's not my claim. Don't you recognise the difference between adding content and adding a reference? You're prepared to wikilawyer just to try to sling mud at me. That has to stop. "Citizenship" should only be used in an infobox when it is somehow surprising or disputed, not here. That's a distortion of our current practice. The documentation says "Should only be used if citizenship cannot be inferred from the birthplace; note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders." Most readers would have to look up that Saint-Michel-de-Chabrillanoux is in France, and not in Switzerland or St Lucia, etc. This infobox offers the citizenship as a field, and an editor who gains consensus that it is not needed can easily suppress it |suppressfields=citizenship. In those cases, it has the advantage that the consensus is clear and removes the possibility that someone will add it locally, thinking that it has been forgotten. In this edit you added 'place of death' as Strasbourg without any way to verify it. It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V. My goal in this throughout has been to foster the development of new facilities derived from the new resource at Wikidata in a responsive and collaborative manner. Contrast that with your blatant intent to simply protect the status quo at all costs and without consideration. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Don't you recognise the difference between adding content and adding a reference?" Yes. Adding a "reference" to a claim gives the impression that you have confirmed that claim in that reference. If the reference doesn't confirm the claim, your action is a lot worse than adding an unreferenced claim in itself. That's not mudslinging, that's highlighting problematic editing, and (which you did just know) exposing the twisted reasoning behind it. You claim that in this edit I added the place of death "without any way to verify it". Strange, I added as reference an encyclopedia[35] which has a lemma about Paul Sabatier, including year and place of death. From Template:Infobox person: "ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself." The info was added and sourced by me in the article, as preferred at infobox person. "It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V." is thus not true at all, and my source has the advantage of being available online (which is not a requirement, but beneficial for readers and editors alike). Please, if you want to complain about mudslinging, at least make sure that your efforts actually have any basis in reality. Fram (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata really needs to find a better way to link to our redirects than temporarily changing them on enwiki into "articles" just to be able to make an item on Wikidata (and how stupid is it that you can't make an item for a current redirect, but everything works fine if the item points to something that is then turned into a redirect?) See e.g. this.

And I hope I am allowed to replace or remove infoboxes which give the poor result we currently get at e.g. Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício? See the image on the right to see what the infobox (without any local parameters) now looks like (I have not edited the page, so this is not some effort to produce poor results, but actual reality). Fram (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You get the exact same result as shown on the right on other pages as well, e.g. Simos Menardos, Gloria Cuesta or Suzanne Bernard. Aubrey Feist has a box with only her name. Rudolf Schleiden has his picture, and "died" (same for many others). Edward Bergh has his picture, "died", and citizenship. Citizenship is a parameter which rarely if ever should be used (according to the infobox person documentation only when it differs from what can be expected and is really worth mentioning separately), but is included in many of the Wikidata infoboxes. Fram (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a consequence of the switch to only showing sourced information - there is more info already on Wikidata, it just needs references adding. I've partially done this for Maria Madalena de Martel Patrício and, if you give me time, I'll continue working through the rest of the articles too. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the template needs changing (or deleting) to solve this. Fram (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not need deleting. Just give us time to work on it. And AN/I is *not* the place to discuss template changes - the template talk page is. Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

But you don't need 300+ mainspace articles to work on it surely? No deadline is no excuse for "we put our dodgy software with a new problem every day into the mainspace wherever we want to". Fram (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I solved it for you (on the template level), feel free to revert if you get unwanted side effects. Fram (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You did indeed solve it, Fram. I'm sincerely grateful to you spotting the problem and fixing it so rapidly. I do agree that we'll still need a awful lot more referencing on Wikidata before the template becomes a serious candidate to replace {infobox person}. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And still we have articles claiming someone who died over 30 years ago is alive and 107 years old, or RexxS "fixing" redirects on enwiki to get Wikidata to work ([36], [37], [38]), and so on and on and on. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fram, the infobox displayed this because there wasn't a death date on Wikidata. If there isn't a death date, one would assume that the person is alive. This was immediately fixed after I added a death date on Wikidata. Laurdecl ^talk 09:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the infobox displayed this because you (plural) are trying to automate things which need manual intervention in way too many cases. You really don't believe that this is the only article among the 300 or so with this infobox with this problem, do you? Fram (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting worse and worse, sourcing BLPs to porn sites

User:Laurdecl has been pushing this infobox as well, but I wonder about motives and/or competence. This user decided that this BLP didn't only need sourced elements in the Wikidata infobox, and that Wikidata values were better than local ones. At the same time, they "sourced" the article at Wikidata.[39]. The source they used is this NSFW link [ http://kompleks7215.pl/David_Abiker.html (this link generates random results, often porn sites, so don't use it if you can get into trouble!). I have removed the infobox from the article (of course), but I can't take action against the editor as I am involved. Both the editor and the infobox need some solution rather urgently I think. Fram (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the correct link: http://www.premiere.fr/Star/David-Abiker. I was deceived by the Google text preview, which appeared to be a biography of him, and the title, which was "David Abiker Biography". Laurdecl ^talk 20:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I copied the wrong link from Google search (whoops!) when I was looking for a source. I haven't added this infobox to a single article, how am I pushing anything? Why did you post this at AN/I..... Laurdecl ^talk 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, you did add this infobox to articles?! [40] Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, that was after Fram removed it and I fixed the death date on Wikidata, Future Perfect at Sunrise Laurdecl ^talk 09:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Reaction from the editor at his talk page: "lol"[41]. Do we really need editors who don't take such situations seriously? We can't do anything about their Wikidata editing, but someone who takes his own mistakes (if that is what is was of course), introducing porn sites to BLP articles, as some kind of juvenile joke is hardly someone I want to see editing articles here... Fram (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cry me a river. You attack me on another user's talk page, claiming that I have some kind of pro-Wikidata agenda, after I tried to add "(aged x)" after the birth date in the infobox. You then look through my contributions, ignoring all the dates I have sourced correctly, and take an honest mistake where I copied the wrong link from Google. You then try to out me on AN/I (or whatever you're doing here) because of your vendetta against Wikidata (also claiming that I "push" this template, which is patently false). In your attack above, you call me incompetent and make a thinly veiled request for another administrator to block me, because you don't like me trying to contribute to this template, as a worse template means your ridiculous TfD is more likely to succeed. If you hate this template, take it to ArbCom instead of attacking editors who disagree with you. Laurdecl ^talk 10:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way did I try to out you? Anyway, looking at your other "dates I have sourced correctly), I notice from the few you did the last days, Ludwig van Beethoven, where you added a source to his birthdate on Wikidata. Too bad that your source, Britannica, doesn't have your date in it.

Your kind of "improvements" are more likely to get the template deleted and Wikidata use more restricted on enwiki, than that they are improving the chances of survival of this template. Let's see, Rita Maiburg. You sourced her date of birth and death on Wikidata[42], thereby making sure that they appeared in the infobox. Nice work. But you sourced these to [43] which supports neither her date of birth nor her date of death, all it has is the info that she died in 1977, aged 25. Perhaps you just copied the wrong link again and wanted to include something like [44]? Perhaps, but that's now three incorrect (and in one case actually harmful) sourcing attempts, from the 8 you did yesterday. If that isn't a lack of competence, then what is? The template is at TfD, no need for ArbCom here. Fram (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that adding fake sources to Wikidata in a series of several instances is a rather serious pattern of misconduct. Larudecl, please take this as a warning that you may be blocked even here on en-wp for disruptive edits made at Wikidata, if they are made with the intent and with the effect of affecting articles content here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What's this? More threats from the anti-Wikidata inquisition? After adding one incorrect source by accident and a source that is only accurate to the year, I get block threats for disruptive editing. I understand both of you hate Wikidata (actually I don't really understand, but), and I don't want to get caught up in whatever this is. All I tried to do was fix things that Fram had said in his TfD were broken, and I'm being threatened for it? Why? Because an improvement to this infobox means it's less likely to be deleted? Laurdecl ^talk 20:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not "one" incorrect source. Fram just cited two cases (Beethoven and Rita Maiburg). I just found two more, among the three or four latest pages you edited on Wikidata: Charles Conrad Abbott (where there was an unsourced death date and you added a source that, again, supports only the year but not the exact date), and Helen Mackay (where there was an unsourced death date and you added a source that actually gave a different date [45]). You seem completely oblivious to the fact that such edits are detrimental. They are; stop doing that. If you add a source to something, it has to support exactly what it is claimed to support; everything else is disruptive and deeply irresponsible, no matter if it's here or on Wikidata. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding references that don't support the facts being referenced is definitely not OK, neither here or on Wikidata. WP:AGF, though - at least in the case of Helen Mackay this looks like it's an easy mistake to make (15-7 vs. 17-7, easy to misread, particularly given that the typo is already present in the article). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

With Charles Conrad Abbott, the death date was correct, and I've now added a new reference for that date. The reference added by Laurdecl was useful for referencing a number of the other statements. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I accept that I used inadequate references at least twice on Wikidata, that only support the death/birth year instead of the full date. At the time I was rushing to add references to stop Fram from removing the template because of seemingly incorrect dates. I apologise for that, and I will take more care in the future when referencing on Wikidata. A simple note on my talk page would have sufficed. However, Fram makes a thread on AN/I about me (while declaring he has ""obviously"" removed the infobox from the article) and makes a thinly veiled request for another administrator to block me. What's up with this? I have no ill feelings toward Fram, but his first impression of me is that I'm some idiotic Wikidata crusader who doesn't take criticism and ruins articles (his own words) [46]. Fram then says here: "I have seen your true colours... Bye". What true colours, am I the Antichrist or something? What kind of hostile behaviour is this, especially from an administrator? Laurdecl ^talk 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• And what is so incredibly terrible about "removing the template" (usually replacing the /Wikidata version with the standard version) that you need to rush to make incorrect changes just to prevent this from happening? You have shown that you believe it to be more important to keep this template in an article than to get correct (or even acceptable) references in enwiki or Wikidata. That are your true colours. Not the Antichrist, you are rather keen on hyperbole it seems, but someone who doesn't haev the right perspective and lacks the right set of priorities (just like RexxS and a few others who are more worried about pushing Wikidata than about getting it right apparently). What did you expect, a hug? Yes, "obviously" I removed the infobox, sending readers to a site which "references" that BLP from a pornsite (not even a pornsite about that subject, just a totally unconnected site) should be prevented asap. You seem to question the obviousness of that removal even after all this? Fram (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fram, you know you're not actually allowed to randomly remove this infobox from articles when their authors have opted in, this was the outcome of the 2013 RfC... Why didn't you remove the source on Wikidata, instead of the entire template? I get that you don't like the consensus that supports this template, but edit warring, personal attacks and forum-shopping is not the right way to change things. Also, please don't insult RexxS, I'm sure his editing is of a far higher caliber than mine (which isn't hard). And yes, I would like a hug, if you're offering. Please calm down, this AN/I and the TfD are the size of a small novel. Laurdecl ^talk 08:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Please tell me on which articles I have removed the infobox when the authors of the article have opted in? In most (probably all) cases the infobox was added by other editors, usually as their only edit to the article. No RfC has decided "if anyone adds a Wikidata template to an article, no one is ever allowed to change it to a non-Wikidata infobox ever again, not even to improve the infobox or to get rid of problems the Wikidata infobox may cause". Please don't lecture people on what they are "allowed" to do if you don't know what you are talking about. I hope your position is your own mistake and not the standard mindset of the people supporting this /wikidata infobox. 09:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

      • 

        Hmmmmm.......

        I'm not lecturing you Fram, and I consider "you don't know what you are talking about" a personal attack. Multiple independent editors who aren't involved with Wikidata or this template have added it to pages. The distinction between them and you is that you are mass removing this template because you don't like it. That is what this is about, nothing else, not about me being an idiot as you have insinuated. You don't like the template and you want it gone. End of story. Don't deny it. Laurdecl ^talk 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh, so "you know you're not actually allowed to randomly remove this infobox from articles when their authors have opted in," when I have never (AFAIK) removed the infobox from any pages where the authors have opted in is not "lecturing" me. Fine, then it is a nice example of a strawman argument. If you did know what you were talking about, you were deliberately using a strawman argument to give the impression that I have gone against the wishes of article creators or major contributors. If I were you, I'ld prefer the "personal attack" and accept that you didn't know what you were talking about, instead of claiming that you deliberately told nonsensical lines to give the impression that I was doing things that aren't allowed.
        • As for the distinction between the people who have added the infobox, and me: they have in most cases just added it and left it to produce whatever results happened, whether these were good or bad, whether it produced empty infoboxes or infoboxes with some results (like only a date of birth), ... I have changed these in most cases to much more complete infoboxes, filled with information from the article, sometimes with added (correct!) sources, sometimes with a more precise infobox (like infobox scientist instead of infobox person)... While some of my comments have been too heated, I'm not ashamed of any article edit I made in this whole saga. Can you say the same? Fram (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks like I'm not getting that hug then. I don't like arguing and frankly, I'm not sure why I'm here. I added an incorrect source by accident, due to its deceiving title and Google description and I apologised for this above. I advise you to drop the stick, Fram, many of the issues you raise are real and need fixing, but AN/I is not the place for this. Making long threads about editors, who you've put in in your category of incompetents and idiots, isn't going to help get this template fixed, or get it removed if that's what you want. I made a useful addition to this template by adding "aged x" functionality for the birth/death date field and I'm now being harassed for it. Please stop wasting my time. Bye. Laurdecl ^talk 06:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think I called anyone an idiot. Someone sourcing some dates in 8 articles and getting it wrong 5 times out of 8 is a serious problem, which you don't seem to recognise. Your "useful addition" was incorrect as well on multiple levels, as has been demonstrated. Getting criticism for the many errors you made is not "harassment" though. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
              • Please. "I wonder about competence... this editor needs a solution rather urgently... I have seen your true colours... you don't know what you're talking about...". I copied the wrong link from Google, which, while appearing to be a bio site, was some kind of random link generator. My useful addition (minus the scare quotes) is only incorrect when the author is too lazy to add in a death date. The worst thing I am guilty of is using sources that support dates only to the year. You appear to ignore what I have written about this thread being fruitless for you. Hopefully this is my last post on this pointless thread. Stop wasting my time, and your own. Laurdecl ^talk 09:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
                • You should never copy a link from Google without actually looking at the source, if only to determine whether the source is reliable and not e.g. a wikipedia mirror. Even without the porn results, this is very poor practice. You should e.g. also never use Geni.com as a source, which you did (here and on Wikidata) for Edward Dean Adams. Fram (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
                  • You're correct in what you say Fram, and I apologise for not taking more care. There was no need to take this to AN/I, nor was there a need to make (very) long threads with veiled insults against other editors and myself. Me using inadequate sources on occasion is not what this thread is about and is not a matter for AN/I. If you don't like Wikidata on Wikipedia then you need to start another RfC, not TfDs where you state problems that are easily solved or AN/I posts which result in nothing but hostility and bad will. I'm done here. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 06:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  "just like RexxS and a few others who are more worried about pushing Wikidata than about getting it right apparently" Another unsubstantiated personal attack, Fram. This has to stop. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Nothing unsubstantiated about it, anyone uninvolved can e.g. read the subsection here below and the multiple discussions we had. Have you already forgotten your sourcing of a 1928 year of death to a 1911 source? Have you forgotten that you "sourced" at Wikipedia the "fact" that Sabatier was "educated at University of Paris", even though that "fact" was incorrect and not in the source you used? Couple that with your false claims (many in the TfD discussion, but also in the section below, or above with the "In this edit you added 'place of death' as Strasbourg without any way to verify it. It wasn't until I added the 1989 Britannica source with volume and page that the information met our expectations of WP:V."), and you are quite brave to call the attention of uninvolved admins here.

    Of course, this doesn't even include your PA's in the last few days at User talk:RexxS: "Stop trolling", "your paranoia", "Stop whining", "If you were capable of reading what I wrote instead of just spouting away without thinking,", "it's time to get back under your bridge.". Fram (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

    Your attack is utterly unsubstantiated, and it's a disgrace that you're allowed to repeat it. I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox in this edit. A reader who wishes to verify that using the page as you left it, soon finds how deceptive your edit was. So no, my claim was not false, and I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you.

    As for PA's, I'm more than happy for an uninvolved admin to look at [my talk page and see whether your vandalism template was justified or harassment; whether your demands in making the section Please stop with the "fixes" and improve Wikidat instead, were justifiable or rose to the level of trolling after being asked multiple times to state the policy that you claim I breached. They might also comment on whether my frustration at your behaviour on my talk page justifies the epithets I applied to it. Now, at what point are you going to stop wasting everybody's time both here and on my talk page on your unfounded calumnies? --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

    Your first question, about WP:V, has been answered in a separate section. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

    And my other questions, along with your personal attacks remain outstanding. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Corrupting Wikidata by messing with Enwiki

User:RexxS hass taken up the habit of circumventing restrictions at Wikidata by messing with enwiki. In this, this and this edit he momentarily changes a valid enwiki redirect into a nonsense article, only to change it back the next minute? Why? Wikidata doesn't allow the addition of redirects to Wikidata items, only real articles can be used (to avoid the messing up of interwikilinks presumably). But RexxS needs these redirects as Wikidata items anyway to get his /Wikidata template to work properly. So he changes enwiki in ways not allowed, to add things to Wikidata which Wikidata doesn't allow, to defend a template with enough problems as it stands already. I raised this at User talk:RexxS#Please stop with the "fixes" and improve Wikidat instead, only to be greeted with "your paranoia" and similar nice comments about me. So here we are. Fram (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What Fram calls "messing with enwiki" comprises a momentary change of a redirect into a non-redirect and then restoring it, as he admits. During that brief moment I make the link on Wikidata to the 'redirect'. It allows the separate entries at Wikidata for "Theology" and "Theologian" to both point to our article called Theology that covers both. That is a one-off job done and causes no harm whatsoever. Fram does not adduce any evidence, or even suggest ways in which these edits could be problematical on enwiki, yet he claims to be the judge of "what is allowed", without citing a single policy that my edits might have violated. Fram is merely annoyed that I'm steadily fixing issues that he wants to complain about and use as ammunition in his campaign against Wikidata. This really is becoming harassment and I'd like to see Fram warned to disengage from posting demands on my talk page, which he seems to be doing in an attempt to just get a response. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

On the section heading, I believe that Wikidata routinely treats the "academic field" as being a separate thing from a "profession". Therefore, it's hard to see how setting up separate links to the academic field and the profession is "corrupting Wikidata".

I'm struggling to see any reason for any of this dispute to be here at ANI. Perhaps it should be closed, and the complainants directed to a non-admin page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata should only link only to enwiki articles, not enwiki redirects. The end result is that Wikidata now has two items pointing to one Wikipedia artiucle, and that infoboxes on enwiki now have an "article" on enwiki which doesn't exist but which RexxS feels should be there anyway. Fram (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, Fram, you don't get to decide what Wikidata should or shouldn't link to. Wikidata often has two separate entries for related but different topics, like theology (Q34178) and theologian (Q1234713), while here we just have one article, Theology, and a redirect, Theologian. Following my edit, each Wikidata item now has the correct link to the corresponding entity on Wikipedia, as anyone can check by going to the article or the redirect and following the [Wikidata item] link on the left 'tools' menu. Anyone following the Wikidata link to enwiki's Theologian will naturally still arrive at Theology, where the occupation is discussed here. You complained that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is no enwiki article for that topic, now you are complaining that that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is an enwiki article for that topic. You need to make your mind up. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"You complained that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is no enwiki article for that topic, now you are complaining that that Wikidata-aware infoboxes create links to Wikidata where there is an enwiki article for that topic. " No. I complained (and complain) that the infobox links to Wikidata while there is an enwiki article for the topic. An enwiki redirect is an obvious sign that we have an article on the topic, but it was a sign that the infobox is unable to understand. You tried to fix this, but this results in the infobox on Paul Sabatier listing University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) which through a redirect at Universität Straßburg links to University of Strasbourg. This is a rather ridiculous situation, caused by the fact that you refuse to simply link to his employer, the University of Strasbourg, and instead insist on using the title of the Wikidata item, even though no Wikipedia article exists for it in any language. Wikidata now claims that the enwiki article for University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) is located at Universität Straßburg, which is a fantasy you deliberately and knowingly introduced to push through your preference. Which is, like this section title claims, corrupting Wikidata by messing with enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Paul Sabatier died in 1928 and was employed by the University of Strasbourg that existed from 1538 to 1970. That was originally a German-speaking institution whose title was Universität Straßburg. That is fact. Why are you complaining that the infobox at Paul Sabatier should link to that? Anyone following the link will still arrive on our article that covers both the medieval university and its modern counterpart. Of course an article on the medieval institution exists on enwiki (and many other language wikis) - it's the same article that covers the present university which shares its name. So I ask again: what's the problem you're complaining about? --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Because Paul Sabatier never worked at the Universität Straßburg but only at the Université de Strasbourg (and that the 1538 institution wasn't called Universität Straßburg either, if you want to be pedantic). And because sending people through an unnecessary and misleading redirect, and showing them an "article title" which doesn't exist on enwiki (or frwiki or dewiki, which all agree to treat the institution as one with a history from 1538 until now) is misleading: and editing enwiki and Wikidata to give the impression on Wikidata that enwiki has an article on the 1538-1970 item, and that it is called Universität Straßburg, is plain nonsense. Your wikilawyering is not convincing. Fram (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But Paul Sabatier did work at the university that was originally titled Universität Straßburg, exactly as I claimed. The 1538 institution was not a university until 1621 when it became Universität Straßburg, if you want to be precise. No reader ever notices a redirect and using Universität Straßburg for the 1538–1970 institution is perfectly apt as that was its title for most of its existence, and in no way misleading. The article title that the reader arrives at is University of Strasbourg. If a wikidata-aware infobox were used at Paul Sabatier (theologian), this is what the reader would see: Faculté de théologie protestante de Strasbourg . Anyone can click on that to see that what I'm saying is true. You're the one playing with words to create a misleading impression. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You changed Universität Straßburg to an article so that you could create a link to it in this Wikidata entry, a Wikidata item otherwise without any matching wikipedia article in any language, and with an incorrect website (hint: most universities which disappeared in 1970 don't have an official website). This had the effect that this infobox could link to University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) instead of University of Strasbourg in the infobox. This is messing with enwiki and messing with wikidata just to get your result, no matter what is useful for the reader. Fram (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

But at Talk:Paul Sabatier (theologian), in the context of the difference between Universität Straßburg and University of Strasbourg, you claimed that "everyone who wrote these articles and even the University itself think they are so much of a continuation that they can and should be treated as one" Those are your exact words. So according to you, they are the same university, so of course they have an official website now (hint: Universität Straßburg is also the German name for the present university known in France as UDS). You see, Fram, you don't have any consistency in argument, you take one line when it suits you in order to contradict me in one place, and then take the opposite line here, where you're merely trying to harass me out of opposing your crusade against Wikidata. You're the one who will go to any lengths to get your result, "no matter what is useful for the reader" --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is apparent that there is no argument here, these two names refer to the same university. Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. The discussion was about the difference between University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) and University of Strasbourg, not about "Universität Straßburg]] and University of Strasbourg", so you start incorrectly straight away. You claim that they are two entities, one which has stopped in 1970 (but which has according to Wikidata a website anyway, even though the one listed there doesn't mention anything about this historical entity). I claim that there is one entity, the current University of Strasbourg, which of course has a website (which is correctly listed at our article). Just reread the talk page you link to, you started that section with the question "There are two different entries on Wikidata: University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) (Q20808141) and University of Strasbourg (Q157575)." Framing this as if I don't know that Universität Straßburg is the German for the university of Strasbourg is disingenious and a rather terrible strawman argument. Fram (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The actual title of what you call University of Strasbourg (1538-1970) (note the redlink) was Universität Straßburg. So, you're wrong again: I started absolutely correctly. It's not my claim. It's a verifiable fact that the original university, originally part of the German education system and founded in 1538, was dissolved in 1970 by the French government and replaced by three separate institutions. The French government later replaced those three institutions in 2009 by a new university whose title is Université de Strasbourg, commonly called UDS. I say that the original university and the modern university are two different institutions and the Paul Sabatier was employed by the former, not the latter, and that it is appropriate that our infobox should link to the former (even though the redirect takes a reader to the joint article on enwiki). Fram doesn't want this to happen simply because it fits with the way wikidata organises the topics. Fram believes that anything that might show Wikidata in a good light is anathema, and he needs to keep generating these spurious ANI complaints to remove opposition to his crusade against Wikidata. This has to stop. --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So you now claim that the actual title of the institution Paul Sabatier worked at was Universität Straßburg? Really? I rest my case... Fram (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It became a German-speaking university in 1621 as Universität Straßburg - are you denying that? I accept that in 1872 it was renamed Kaiser-Wilhelm-Universität and that in 1919 when Sabatier went to work there, its actual title is unclear. However, its title was never "University of Strasbourg" as you continually insist. Of that there is no doubt at all. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Duh, seriously? Of course its name was never "University of Strasbourg", that's the English translation of its name. On enwiki, we use the local name or the common English name. In 1919, that local name wasn't "Universität Straßburg". In late 1918, the University again became French (like it had been for long strectches of its history) and even banned German students. Do you really think that they would give it a German name then? I'll make it clear one last time: in 1919, Paul Sabatier started to work for the "Université de Strasbourg", which is in English known as the "University of Strasbourg". No "Universität Strassburg" comes into play here. None. Remember that in 1889 he was expelled because he refused to become a German... Fram (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As for me "continually insisting" that he worked at an English titled university, you perhaps missed my 15:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC) in this very section? The one that starts "Because Paul Sabatier never worked at the Universität Straßburg but only at the Université de Strasbourg"... Next time, try to accuse me of something that isn't so easily refuted please. Fram (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes seriously. The university was titled Universität Straßburg for at least as long as it was titled Université de Strasbourg, and what's more you have no evidence of a change of its name in 1918, just speculation. You're simply harping on my use of one of the possible actual titles as a redirect, yet you're fixated with a title that the university never had. Of course, you actually know that he was expelled from being vicar of St Nicolas in 1889, not from the university, right? --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to close this?

What admin intervention is being asked for here? If none, I suggest the whole section be closed and discussion moved to a more appropriate talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are serious issues raised here (linking WP to porn sites? getting something as basic as Beethoven's dob wrong on a site the whole purpose of which is to spread information around as widely as possible?) but I hesitate to comment here as that is not the purpose of this page. These issues should be raised on a community-wide RfC or something.Smeat75 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I am wondering what the proposed solutions might be? I do personally sense that the Wikidata crowd have been getting disruptive and have seemed to have overstepped their remit on en.wiki. What are the proposed solutions? For example, that RexxS be temporarily topic-banned from adding wikidata-related edits to en.wiki? Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Having raised most of the issues, I don't think I am the right person to suggest solutions (not that you were asking me specifically, just a reply in case you wonder why I raise a fuss and then don't suggest any solutions). Perhaps making it clear that if people object to the /wikidata infobox on an article and replace it with a standard infobox (usuallu with more or better information), this probably should be respected. Perhaps some indication as well that editors making edits on Wikidata which impact enwiki, will be treated the same way as editors doing such edits directly on enwiki (even though at the moment we can't stop them from editing Wikidata itself)? Fram (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As for myself, I've already gone on record (at the last such discussion) that the wikidata infoboxes are poor and unhelpful, and worse than no infobox at all. As for your second suggestion, I'm not informed enough to comment (although if I had read all of the minutae of this long thread I might be). Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps caveat that with saying that people shouldn't systematically remove the template, or cause unnecessary drama at the same time? On 'wikidata infoboxes are poor and unhelpful' - have a look at the wikidata-driven infobox at South Pole Telescope, that's what the long-term aim here for this infobox is, we just need a bit more time to work on it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox on South Pole Telescope was added 12 June 2015 [47], when the wikidata contained only this: [48], which (with only an image and two bits of data) is very poor and worse than no infobox at all in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on expanding it quite a bit since then, though, and it doesn't look the same now as it did in 2015. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is it should never have been added to the article, at least not at that time, and that addition is exemplary of the problematic wikidata IBoxes that have been added all over the place. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly observation, in case anyone was wondering about this template being removed: last I checked Category:Articles using Template Infobox person Wikidata numbered ~550. It is now done to 300. Laurdecl ^talk 06:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you might have checked, but that category was only created 26 January and AFAIK has never been over 400. The WhatLinksHere count is higher but includes non-articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On 20-21 January I made edits to 417 different articles to changing the infobox settings to specify 'fetchwikidata=ALL'. That may be accurate to ~5% due to the infobox being added to more articles with that parameter already being specified, and any duplications in my counting. I don't think it's been as high as 550, although my memory was circa 450 transclusions. There are now 339 transclusions, and 331 articles in Category:Articles using Template Infobox person Wikidata - circa 90 less than before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin asked to please please look at this one element of the dispute. Please?

(copied from above by Fram)

I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox in this edit. A reader who wishes to verify that using the page as you left it, soon finds how deceptive your edit was. So no, my claim was not false, and I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(end of copied relevant part of the statement)

From Template:infobox person: "[...]ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself." The contested information (place of death) is added in the infobox and in the last line of the same diff in the body of the article, sourced to Hillerbrands "Encyclopedia of Protestantism", a 2004 Routledge publication (so an impeccable source). The relevant lemma is listed in the source (Sabatier, Paul (1858-1928)) and a link to the Google book is added (which isn't necessary, but nice to have). A direct link to the lemma would also be possible ([49]) but is not required.

Can some uninvolved admin please check this stupid dispute and indicate whether my edit was deceptive and I need to have WP:V explained to me, or whether RexxS is mistaken here? Please please please? Fram (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay - little daunting given the fact that I have not read the entirety of this thread and am only giving an opinion on this one element, but here goes.. This section of the template documentation clearly states "ensure that that information is sourced in the article or (if present only in the infobox) in the infobox itself". In this edit Fram added both the parameter and a sourced claim to the place of death - "He died in Strasbourg in 1928.<ref name="Hillerbrand"/>". Therefore, I do not believe this was deceptive and I respectfully suggest that RexxS was mistaken in this one element -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar: Given that WP:V requires the editor adding the text to indicate where they found the information in such a way that some other editor could verify that, I did not believe at the time, nor do I now, that naming a 594 page reference book, which comes in four volumes, without any indication of the volume or page number was sufficient to meet WP:V. Do you still believe that I am mistaken in that? I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time, otherwise why would he omit the volume and page? --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The articles in that work are in alphabetical order so it is trivial to look up an entry. Jbh^Talk 18:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time, otherwise why would he omit the volume and page?" No, you're right, I just happened to get lucky that that source really had that information. And how lucky I was to source it to "Sabatier, Paul (1858-1928)" when that just happens to be the title of the lemma about him. I must be a clairvoyant to add such details without reading the source! Of course, the fact that the same edit[50] also sourced a few other elements to the same source only strengthens your argument.

Why didn't I add a page number. Because the bloody online source doesn't have page numbers at the entries, as you might have noticed if you had actually spend some time researching this instead of just spouting ridiculous accusations. Why no volume number? Because the link I gave is a one-volume "reprint" or edition of the 4 volume set. I have now, to please you, looked at the end of the online source, and in the index the page number in your 594 page reference book is 1634. Would it have helped you to find the right article in the alphabetical list? I doubt it.

But I promise that next time I will follow your example of giving very precise sources, like you did here at Wikidata[51]. You just don't know when to shut up, do you? Fram (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I did spend some time researching it. Let's face it, Fram, you simply used the the Google books snippet for your source. I know very well that you didn't add the page and volume since the online source doesn't show page numbers as you admit, because the online source was your source, not the book as you claimed. Anyone could have told you that the page was 1634 as that's visible in the Google snippet containing the Volume key: Volume 4, pages 1633-2195. It's also worth noting that your edit gave this link for the work: https://books.google.be/books?id=4tbFBQAAQBAJ&dq=sabatier+chabrillanoux&source=gbs_navlinks_s - that's the 4-volume set, not a one volume reprint, as you're trying to make out. Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read. Next time that Google is your source, use {{cite web}}, as that doesn't misrepresent where you found it. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, this is the last time I will respond to your ABF claims here with an umpteenth explanation, if you continue like this regardless I will ask for a block. Can you just tell me, can you a) open this link[52] and b) click on "page" and read the whole page? Or do you get at either point stopped through a paywall or another "not available" message? Because for me, at the time I used the reference, at the time I replied above, and now, I can access and read the whole page and most (or all) other pages in that source. It may be that you, living in England, can't access the source, Google accessability rules for books sometimes differ from country to country.

In any case, what you "know very well" is utterly wrong here. I read the complete entry, not just the Google snippet view; and the online (full- version doesn't have page numbers. The online version is a one-volume version, with one index and one table of contents, just putting all 4 printed volumes together. They can easily do that online, you know? "Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read." Apparently not then. "Next time that Google is your source, use {{cite web}}, as that doesn't misrepresent where you found it." Again, no. Reading a book through Google books is best cited with cite book, not cite web. I don't know why you are so insistent about this side issue, but it is time that you admit that you were wrong about this one thing and stop with the baseless accusations. (Oh, and you haven't addressed your use of "Britannica, 15th edition" as a source; please explain how that is compatible with your position here). Fram (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pleased that it was your last response. I followed that link originally and I know what it states. Nevertheless, if you took Google Books with its single volume as your source, why did you add the ISBN of a four-volume printed edition that you've never seen? How does that square with our policy requirement: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)"? As for my use of Britannica 15th edition as the source, you'll find that when I added it to the article, I gave |date=1989 |edition=15th |volume=10 |page=279. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You could all along access the source, you could see that it has no page numbers, you could have used "about this book" and see the title, publisher, and ISBN given there[53]. But still you insisted that everything I did was wrong, I could not have read the book, made false claims, and so on, just for fun? I'm glad to see though that when you added Britannica to the wrong place in our article, you gave a more complete source than the very brief one you provided at Wikidata. Tell me again why we should then use Wikidata instead? Fram (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• @RexxS: As a completely uninvolved editor who has only read through (and checked the links provided in) this subsection, I have to say that your most recent comment here reads as "You didn't do everything perfectly, which proves you are a liar!" and does more to damage your credibility than to evince any misdeeds on the part of the other party.

Furthermore, WP:PAYWALL makes it quite clear than the accessibility of a source is immaterial to the question of verifiability. And there is no policy which explicitly states that an editor must own a copy of a book to use it as a source, or that an editor cite only print copies, or that an editor read a work in it's entirety. What matters is that the information was actually in the source given, not whether or not another editor can induce that the editor in question had used google to find the reference, rather than painstakingly tracking it down in their local library.

That being said, I have no opinion on (or indeed, knowledge of) any issues not mentioned in this citation question subsection. But if I were to delve into it, I would now start with the impression that you were wikilawyering and making bad faith accusations, which would certainly color my perception of what I read there. I suggest you strike your above comment in its entirety (which would go a long way to demonstrating good faith on your part) and replace it with an acknowledgement that this particular event was not obviously deceptive. You may take or leave my advice at your discretion of course, but I thought a truly objective opinion might help you understand what samtar was saying. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: This section was instigated by Fram, not by me. I'd have been happy to let the issue drop, but he insists. This was precipitated by Fram pointing out multiple times that I supplied the wrong edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (11th instead of 15th) as the source on Wikidata for Sabatier's place of death. I have merely rejoined that he was equally lax when he supplied the same information here on Wikipedia, but instead of admitting it, he thinks he can criticise my mistake while doing just the same sort of thing himself. By the way, there is a requirement that editors have to have read the source they claim: if they read the book, they source to that; if they only read the source online, then that is what they must cite. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:I'd have been happy to let the issue drop, but he insists. Because you keep pushing the same narrative; a narrative which -to me and others- looks highly unbelievable and reeks of a personal attack. It may be that in the overall issue you are (mostly) entirely in the right and Fram in the wrong, but in this particular issue it is quite apparent to me (and to at least two others) than the opposite is true. Showing that you are willing to admit and accept being wrong is a laudable thing; refusing to admit or accept being wrong is a highly negative thing. This is one of those cases where there's really no 'neutral' in between ground.

Just as you would continue to defend yourself tirelessly against false accusations, Fram is doing the same thing, here.

I have merely rejoined that he was equally lax... Ask yourself, which is more demonstrative of competence, confidence and the moral high ground, engaging in a tit-for-tat war of pointless accusations, or ignoring pointless accusations made against you and focusing on where the real problems are?

By the way, there is a requirement that editors have to have read the source they claim: if they read the book, they source to that; if they only read the source online, then that is what they must cite. Please quote that section of policy as I have never heard of it before and find the notion, frankly to be beyond ridiculous. How could any editor prove they have read a source, and how could any other prove they had not? It's just untenable. If such a requirement exists, I plan to launch an immediate attempt to have it excised from policy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors don't have to prove they saw or read any particular source; we take their word for it unless it is patently false. But the problem here is that the online source that Fram used omits the page information that should be supplied if a book were indeed the source. See WP:UNSOURCED (part of the verifiability policy): "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". We should cite the source precisely and provide the details that would make the job of verification simple. That's what I've always understood our policy to require and that's why I quoted edition, volume and page when I added the Encyclopedia Britannica source for Sabatier's place of death. Fram wants to hold me to the highest standards, yet fails to hold himself to the same. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you read your own quote? And have you read the replies you already got from uninvolved admins here? "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" For an encyclopedia with alphabetical lemmae, citing the actual lemma is citing "such divisions as may be appropriate". By the way, I just looked again at the diff you provided to show how it should be done[54] "for Sabatier's place of death." (like you say here and in the edit summary, "to source place of death"). Why did you add this in the middle of a sentence in a paragraph which doesn't even mention his place of death? Anyway, you haven't replied to my explanation above, but insist here that "the online source that Fram used omits the page information that should be supplied if a book were indeed the source." You have never seen books without page numbers? Or you don't believe that an online full version of a book can omit the page numbers that the printed version has? Or you simply don't believe anything I say? What is your problem actually? Fram (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Really, both of you, with all respect, you should stop this exchange. There's nothing either of you has to gain from continuing it, and it's really getting unseemly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Can't whoever is making changes in mainspace to perfect some template really try to do all that in userspace until we're ready for primetime? I think that would prevent lots of drama: in userspace, you can have bogus redirects, link to porn sites, change names from French to English to German, and no one will bother you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Block of RexxS requested

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

---

Please read the above section "Uninvolved admin asked to please please look at this one element of the dispute. Please? ". I repeatedly explained my use of the source to RexxS, different uninvolved editors agreed with me and advised him to drop it, but the relentless bad faith assumptions continued. It now turns out that RexxS could see the source all along but just made my explain myself ad nauseam for fun.

• "I stand by my accusation that you added an unverified place of death to the infobox [...] how deceptive your edit was. [...]I would still like an uninvolved admin to look at your edit and explain WP:V to you
• "I don't believe that Fram actually read the source he was asking us to accept at the time"
• "Let's face it, Fram, you simply used the the Google books snippet for your source."
• "Anybody can follow that link and see that you deceptively added a book source you never read."

MPants summarized his impression of RexxS posts as accusing me of "You didn't do everything perfectly, which proves you are a liar!", but RexxS continued just the same, although I have trouble understanding what his remaining objection is, apart from the fact that I lied, deceived, and did everything wrong.

This has been going of for long enough and needs to stop. Since requests from uninvolved editors to stop haven't helped, I feel that it is time for other measures. Fram (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose unless BOTH parties are blocked, as it takes two to continue a dispute. The admin appears to want to solve everything by blocking someone. He blocked Cassianto for a month for re-adding a PA someone else was responsible for. Cassianto received no warning as others involved did--just the block; the admin is also not amenable to unblocking him. Maybe it would be good for him to be on the receiving end of a block, as it might make him less willing to use the block button as a solution. We hope (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the first sentence of We hope's comment, but not blocking either would be much better (and I'm disappointed that Fram has made this request in the first place). Also +1 to Fut.Perf.'s comment above ("There's nothing either of you has to gain from continuing it"). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose we probably should have a WP:LAME block criteria but we do not. Both editors should just let it drop. Neither is exactly covering themselves in glory here. Jbh ^Talk 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Fram, you may not be acting in an official admin capacity here, but you are still an admin. It just doesn't look right for you to propose a block against RexxS when you are deeply involved in a protracted dispute with him. Indeed, Ritchie333 indicated a week earlier in this thread, which has dragged on for far too long, that he felt your conduct was block-worthy. You're a fine editor, but it's not a good look for you to try to get an opponent blocked. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There does seem to be a degree of disruption going on. I still Support an at-least temporary topic ban on any enwiki edits that involve or relate to wikidata. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment- I'm not sure what RexxS is playing at here, but on this issue it is clear that Fram is right. I'm not sure a block is really called for quite yet, but I'll quickly change my mind if RexxS does not drop the silly games, ABF, and circuitous wikilawyering immediately. Reyk _YO! 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Time for Fram to drop the stick, and be grateful he has escaped a boomerang. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose No Fram. You are accusing someone of misbehaviour when your own behaviour is antagonistic and looks to me like someone who wants a certain outcome in discussions and doesn't like what he's hearing. You were told above to drop it but you haven't and didn't. Please do.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC))

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

Temporary TBAN for Fram

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

---

Regardless of whether Fram's points are valid or not, his repeated violations of 3RR, NPA, and refusal to drop the stick after he has been requested to by multiple admins is unacceptable. Fram has removed this template from (literally) hundreds of articles and both this thread and his disruptive novel sized TfD are clear cut examples of blockworthy behaviour. His attempts to subvert the consensus of the 2013 RfC through blocks and harassment of other editors (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is inappropriate for any editor, not to mention an administrator. Fram's ability to act appropriately is obviously hampered wherever Wikidata is involved (see his block proposal above). I propose a temporary TBAN from Wikidata and articles using this template to stop this disruptive editing, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and these attacks on other editors (i.e. RexxS; Mike Peel). Laurdecl ^talk 00:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The whole section above suggests that Fram "does not like" errors in articles and may not be happy about having hard-to-see vandalism introduced into articles (a large watchlist which includes Wikidata changes is very cumbersome). Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much for the same reasons I opposed the sanction above. That said all parties really need to chill out. Personally, simply from reading through what the parties have had to say about the new Wikidata-person template, it should not be deployed in more than a handful of test articles until the bugs re policing the wiki data data, attribution/sourcing etc are worked out. Jbh ^Talk 01:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• If nothing is going to be done on either side here, can we get this thread closed? Laurdecl ^talk 01:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO this situation is getting awfully close to something for ArbCom to handle. --Rschen7754 01:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- per Johnuniq. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Laurdecl, either provide evidence of me repeatedly violating 3RR and that I have "removed this template from (literally) hundreds of articles", or withdraw this section and preferably apologise for your "mistakes" in this filing. I guess, without counting, that I have removed this template from perhaps 30 articles, not "hundreds of articles" by a very wide margin. (I didn't really remove it in most cases, I replaced it with a better, more complete and correct template, but let's ignore that part for now). ACcusing people of "blockworthy behaviour" should be based on reality. Accusing people of things they haven't done is a personal attack. Beware the boomerang. Fram (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The very first post here was about your edit warring and 3RR violations. Perhaps you did not remove this templates hundreds of times, but the tracking category has gone down at least 100 articles. You would know about personal attacks though, wouldn't you? You can hardly talk to me about boomerangs after your block proposal above. Laurdecl ^talk 11:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The first post was about one supposhas ed 3RR violation which didn't violate 3RR anyway, so not "repeated" violations in any case. You claimed I had "literally" removed "hundreds" of templates, but apparently "literally" has another meaning for you? Newsflash: other people have removed the template as well (and in more cases than I did), as I am not the only one opposed to it. Which leaves you with "personal attacks". Ritchie333 clearly warned me about those a week ago or so, and since then I have seriously toned down my comments. But whether they were sometimes still too aggressive or not, they at least remained fact based. I asked for a block based on facts, most people felt the facts didn't warrant a block, fine, but they didn't dispute the facts. On the other hand, you ask for a sanction as well, but two out of the three arguments you present are completely wrong and the third one is outdated, not an ongoing problem. So yes, I can perfectly warn you to be aware of the risk of a boomerang sanction. Falsely accusing people in the hope that they will get sanctioned that way is about the worst thing you can do in this environment. Fram (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per JBH. But... folks, both "sides" need to take a step back and try to de-escalate the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it is a bit hard to take a step back when you have one editor who insists on continuing with nonsense accusations over the application of WP:V after uninvolved admins have ruled on it, and when you have another editor who then tries to gets you sanctioned based on utterly false accusations. I hope that this doesn't get to ArbCom, but it is looking more and more like it sadly. I shouldn't have used personal attacks near the start of this dispute, but I never told lies to get someone else sanctioned. No collaboration is possible with someone who is willing to go so low to "win". Fram (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know if you're talking about me (I'm not even involved in the original dispute, so I don't know what I would "win") but I've never lied to get you sanctioned. You have violated 3RR, made personal attacks, and systematically removed this template from many pages and in some cases edit warring to keep your preferred template. All you are doing here is wasting the time of people who could improve this template. What I am looking for is an end to this situation, which is disruptive and unnecessary, and you are clearly the one who won't drop the stick. I wasn't going to propose anything until you made your ridiculous block proposal above and my suggestion of a (temporary) topic ban is much more mature than whatever you were asking for above. Laurdecl ^talk 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - as asinine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request close

This is clearly going nowhere. Each 'side' has had their say and are not going to change their minds based on something said here. Either they can work it out amongst themselves (in my opinion unlikely) or they can take it to ArbCom. The only thing likely to come of keeping this open is to piss of good editors (which we must all remember both 'sides' are composed off, we are not talking your typical ANI bait here) until they make some dumb move out of frustration and then we risk losing someone. Please close this. Jbh ^Talk 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors

For some time now, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) has been conducting a disruptive war of attrition on other editors, based on imposing a simplistic blanket interpretation of styleguides over common practice within specific fields. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Page move ban, and the links from there. The two main aspects are about capitalisation: Should Heart of Wales Line et al be capitalised? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line' and hyphenation: Harz Narrow Gauge Railways etc. Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains#Potential mass move of railway articles could hinge on discussion at one article.

This much is bad enough. An argument is being sustained as a personal crusade, hoping simply to outlast the staying power of the many editors who disagree with him. His colleague in this has been misquoting ArbCom as personal userpage threats those opposing them Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Threats from SMcCandlish. Now though, Dicklyon is treating those who disagree as liars. Enough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And away we go again. You are reminded that "Threats from SMcCandlish" was closed by two uninvolved as unfounded, one advising you to drop the stick. And this did not call anybody a liar and didn't approach personal attack. If Dicklyon or anybody else has violated behavior policy or guideline, please cite the p or g and provide diffs. Otherwise stop using ANI as a weapon in a content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I second this. Just because the real world has turned really ugly doesn't mean that editors can repeat it here by using this forum for continual attacks to get their way. Tony (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Saying that someone knows something is untrue and is saying it anyways *is* an accusation of lying. This is not even slightly difficult. How can you not know this? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

How can you not know this? Did you just call me a liar? Using words like "Oh, bullshit" does not increase the strength of one's argument. I call for close before this spirals out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any of that rose to the level of calling other people liars. At most some people were accused of forgetting certain things and having to be reminded of them. That's no big deal. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh, so Dicklyon using his phrasing "did not call anyone a liar" and yet somehow my using the phrasing did? Or at least enabled you to resort to the tired "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR" rhetorical device? I'd say that you've demonstrated that using "bullshit" to describe what you call an argument is merely an accurate description. Here, do you need any help in coming with any less-cliched rhetorical fallacies? This might give some help. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not helpful. I believe that Mandruss' question was intended as an ironic way of suggesting that neither your comment nor Dicklon's was an example of calling someone a liar. Paul August ☎ 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course it was. I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you've decided to go with "moving the goalposts" as today's rhetorical fallacy. Tell me, are you working off a checklist?

I think that was obvious to everyone except Calton No, I'm certainly perfectly aware that making up bullshit excuses for bad behavior is not helpful. Perhaps you should stop? Or do you have more rhetorical fallacies on your bucket list? --Calton | Talk 12:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I support Andy Dingley's complaint about User:Dicklyon, and that complaint should not be closed just yet. There is clearly an issue as to whether the latter has been disruptively editing, because the latter has been making similar moves to multiple pages without discussion where there is no consensus for such a move. In my view (expressed on Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony), a large part of this disruptive editing is based on a misinterpretation of MOS:HYPHEN, which, in my view, neither requires nor supports such a move. Also, saying to another editor "It's not credible that you've never seen "narrow-gauge railway", is an accusation of lying, in my view. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The moves under question were already addressed, here, which is why the RM discussion is open. Can't have it both ways, proposing that Dicklyon is a bad guy for doing manual moves instead of opening RM discussions, and that he's also a bad guy for opening RM discussions instead of doing manual moves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for Andy Dingley, for misuse of ANI to try to get his way in a trivial content dispute, and for excessive, battlegrounding personalization of title and style disagreements, per WP:ARBATC; Dingley received a {{Ds/alert}} about ARBATC only a little over a week ago [55]. Aside from this frivolous and unclean-hands ANI filing – already a "spiral out of control" – Dingley also posted the following WP:ASPERSIONS about Dicklyon, under the heading "Back at ANI", at Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony itself, instead of writing something more reasonable at DL's user talk page: "Dicklyon, this edit crosses another line. You do not get to describe other editors as liars, simply for disagreeing with you." [56]. This does not comport with WP:TALK policy, and seemed to serve no purpose but to try to color the RM and its closure against DL and anyone else who is not in agreement with Dingley.

  Dicklyon expressing his own credulity level is not "describing other editors as liars". Also, what that other editor posted was not "simply ... disagreeing with [DL]", it was reality-denial, of all the sourced evidence already posted in the RM by DL and by others (including substantial source research by me). The "personal crusade" here is Dingley's 'my topic is magically special and immune to guidelines, evidence, and reason, and I'll have your head for saying it isn't so' behavior. It is disruptive, now of multiple pages and processes, and uncivil.

  Finally, Dicklyon using the prescribed WP:RM process to request moves – based on WP:P&G, evidence in reliable sources, and previous RM precedent – after specifically being instructed by ANI a year or two ago to do so, is hardly "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors"; it's doing as instructed by the community. This was reaffirmed in another ANI, in which Dingley participated, within the month, so Dingley is well aware his hyperbolic accusations are false. That also makes this "re-ANI" an attempt at WP:OTHERPARENT shopping. Dingley is further well aware that his claim of a "common practice within [this] specific field" to drop hyphenation has been disproved, again with RS, in the very RM he's trying to WP:WIN by ANI abuse (the sources are not consistent at all, so we do what MoS says to do, as usual; we don't fight about it article by article until until someone bleeds out). Dingley's is a WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:TE, and WP:WINNING pattern. It has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that Andy D. is over reacting in this instance. Already two non-starters have been presented. It seems Dicklyon did not call anyone a liar. Also, I am going to AGF about the DS template ANI and say that this as threat was misinterpreted. Apparently there are discretionary sanctions regarding MOS issues, and to be forewarned is to be equipped. I don't understand why that is being brought into this discussion, because it was a non-issue.

It also seems to me this is misuse of ANI. Pertaining to the DS Template ANI that was a non-issue, so why bring it here. Andy, do you think it is credible to call a DS template a threat and bring that to ANI? Andy has been around on Wikipedia for a long time (since 2007) along with 113,412 edits. He is a seasoned editor. This really has to stop.

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. The result of that page move ban was no consensus, but part of that finding was that he engage in discussion to develop consensus. This seems to be exactly what he is doing. Please stop bringing the page ban move to ANI every time there is a discussion about Dicklyon unless he is unilaterally doing numbers of page moves. It would be like he lost all good judgement and it seems that has not happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon is allowed to engage in as much discussion as he himself deems necessary. -- really, no, just no. We can and should set limits or else the discussions might never stop. I don't claim those limits have been reached here yet, but it's clear that there is unhealthy MOS obsession going on. Almost all MOS disputes are bullshit and when it's the same few people in the center of them over and over, the question of the community's patience has to come into view. I'd oppose boomeranging Andy in this incident. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a BOOMERANG is a punitive over-reaction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing punitive about it, but purely preventative. It's clear he will continue escalating in this direction until restrained.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What? Looking for a new club now that your attempt to hijack the Discretionary Sanctions process is failing at WP:AE? --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is "unhealthy MOS obsession" is decided by consensus. That's consensus established by Wikipedia process, not individual arm-waving and the volume of voices ("I don't give a damn what you think", "Oh, bullshit") in spurious ANI complaints. Dicklyon has consistently followed Wikipedia process, and it's just too damn bad if certain people are on the losing end of that. A few people need to read and internalize Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:How to lose. Anarchic mob rule seems to be on its way out at en-wiki, thankfully, and I'm here to help it find the door.
I don't really care if Dingley gets his just desserts here, but how else is this business finally going to end? It doesn't appear that he and others are going to stop unless forced to stop by the community.
One of Dicklyon's opponents clearly violated WP:CANVASS yesterday or the day before. He could have had an actual ANI case, but declined to bring it, and the violator gets off scot-free. In contrast, Dicklyon is careful not to violate such policies, so his attackers are forced to invent extra-policy rationales and throw smoke. I think that's a fair illustration of the difference between him and them. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The "style trivia disruption" is, as usual, being caused by "topical fiefdom" editors who disavow the applicability of site-wide guidelines to "their" topic, even when the preponderance of sources is against them, and when then turn the dispute nasty and personal when it looks like they might not get their way. This continuing pattern of WP:1AM / WP:FACTION escalation against WP:P&G on micro-topical basis needs to be brought to an end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you misidentify which end of the 1AM is which. The author of that essay has also done the same thing multiple times (in good faith of course). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that if you're upset at having your arguments termed "bullshit", your best bet would have been not to provide bullshit arguments. Just saying. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Come on, really? It seems as if any attempt by Dicklyon to advocate for his opinion, is seen by some of his opponents as "a disruptive war of attrition on other editors". This seems like an abuse of ANI to me. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not the "any attempt"; it's that we're by now in the nth occurrence of "what, this again?" that makes this recurring issue so tedious. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, it must be tedious for Dicklyon to be forever defending himself for following correct procedures and protocols. Primergrey (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, it's tedious for editors to be constantly put with with editors who've confused styles of language and guidelines with religious dogma. It's tedious for repeatedly disruptive behavior -- behavior that's been sanctioned by ArbCom, no less -- cropping up again and again. --Calton | Talk 10:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any evidence that the average Wikipedia reader cares even one iota about whether "line" should be capitalized or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. But Dicklyon clearly does, and he's happy firstly to waste everyone else's time arguing the point, and then to start abusing people over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So if the general public doesn't care, why do you care about it so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Because I am tired of Dicklyon wasting the time of more productive editors with an incessant stream of these renames. And secondly, some of them (like Heart of Wales Line) are simply wrong. This is why he has only recently been at ANI with editors seeking a topic ban. Yet still it continues. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As trivial as it is, if it's wasting your time, then that's by your choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are the one acting outside of process and policy here. You have asserted one violation of behavior p&g, and it's laughable. If that's the best you have, I suggest you withdraw. The only viable reason to leave this open at this point is because some editors would like to see a boomerang sanction per WP:HA. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am not interested in a Boomerang at this time. But maybe other editors are, and I can't speak for them. I don't know who was doing the Canvassing but that was out of line, I think for obvious reasons. From my experience on Wikipedia - emotions do not equal justification - and I think I am talking about myself. Oh yeah, I've gotten upset at times - but somehow I remember to look at the long term, and see what effect my disagreeable behaviors will cause for me, as an editor. Yes, this is a selfish point of view - maybe it is called self-interest (self-preservation). Well enough about me...how you doin'? (referring to anybody here) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll address who did that canvassing in a subtopic below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've seen some of the dispute about this, and want to chime in with this positive note about User:Dicklyon's editing (and feel free to cite this). One area of Dicklyon's MOS-related page-moves and editing within articles is about dashes vs. hyphens in topics like Ritch–Carter–Martin House, a historic house listed on the U.S. National Register. Dicklyon has been super about addressing a concern I raised and shared with WikiProject NRHP, about incompatibility of redlinks changed to use dashes vs. other redlinks that continue to use hyphens for the same topic, amongst WikiProject NRHP's many list-articles and related disambiguation pages. They're cooperating fully with a workaround (adding changed redlinks to a worklist), summarized publicly at wt:NRHP#hyphen vs. dash issue monitoring after some civil discussion elsewhere. Frankly I am glad someone is taking on the task of changing hyphens to dashes where appropriate, which I perceive everyone was expecting but avoiding as it was likely to blow up in some way, and it is going fine. Thanks, Dicklyon. Thus endeth my !vote of appreciation. :) --doncram 00:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I understand this: are you saying there are some nonexistent articles that are redlinked in multiple styles, and that's a problem that needs fixing by some means other than writing the article and creating the redirects that are needed anyway? Why not just leave the redlinks alone? Writing the article and making the redirects will fill them all in anyway. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I got drawn into this debate, when I had a totally unnecessary and frightening box slapped onto my talkpage.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI when I had the audacity to pointout that some editor who had dropped in had made a silly or stupid edit without any understanding of the nuances or facts. Ignoring my local knowledge, and without resorting to the talk page. In response I see all these WP: flying around. The central point that my interpretation was consistent with MOS:GEOUNITS was ignored, See article on forms of passive aggression- the issue was one of hierachy and control. I am not surprised that this debate has been further deflected by another foray into a further WP, and I am sad to say the same tactic of demonising the messenger- which to my mind proves the point under debate. From my experience, Andy's initial comment was right. Technically he has always been right and it is disgraceful the amount of time wasted when there is so much to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Enough is enough: GF editors should not have to tolerate such abuse. I'm starting to think that it's Dicklyon who should not have to tolerate the abuse at this point in time, with a second ANI listing in the space of one month. I interact with him around the place from time to time, and we don't always see eye to eye, but he is fundamentally courteous and I have rarely if ever known him to overtly break rules or continue with controversial actions if it emerges that consensus is against them. Clearly he has strong beliefs on certain issues, for example down casing of titles, commas in WP:JR, and hyphens/dashes, and will happily spend lots of time discussing those issues and editing articles accordingly, but in no way is that the same as disruption. Repeated listings of him at ANI, for what are fundamentally just content disputes, does not reflect well on those carrying out those listings. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Boomerang – Content and personality squabbles are not AN/I fodder. Furthermore, this an abuse complaint by proxy. Nobody called Andy Dingley a liar. If Corinne feels abused or harrassed, Corinne should file their own complaint. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Character example: ..."fundamentally courteous"...??? While unrelated to railroad articles, this recent edit by User:Dicklyon, "K, you're being an asshole; cut it out.", may perhaps serve as an example of his present demeanor and approach towards fellow editors. To my knowledge, I've had no previous interactions with the user, he just swept in and reverted me on my own user talkpage on behalf of User:Checkingfax whom I had shortly before served with an edit warring warning (which was quickly removed along with its own rude/confrontational edit summary). As User:Dicklyon has been previously blocked for use of sockpuppets in addition to his numerous edit warring blocks, I'm inclined to wonder about what relationship may exist between the two. I offered User:Dicklyon an opportunity to elaborate on his talkpage and he simply directed me back to the summary (where he'd called me an 'asshole' by way of introduction). --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The CANVASS and FACTION issues

Since Steve Quinn and some others seem unaware of the details: The canvassing of railfans to the RM discussion was done by Bermicourt in an alarmist and highly non-neutral post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains [57]. Bermicourt posted this in direct response to my request for reversal of his mass moves to strip hyphens from articles with "narrow-gauge railway" in their titles while two RMs about the matter are still ongoing, and someone else's proposal that the Saxony RM determine outcome for the whole lot of them [58].

This was followed in the same thread at the wikiproject talk page by what is difficult to interpret as anything but pointed and direct canvassing by Redrose64 [59] to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon (after the one the other day on the exact same matter didn't extract a pound of flesh from him [60]); here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter. This WP:DRAMA-activism incident strikes me as questionable conduct for an admin like Redrose64, especially one well aware of WP:ARBATC and the sanctions applicable to personalizing title and style disputes. Its hard to picture anything more personalizing of such a dispute than to incite a wikiproject, which exists to work on article content, to instead "wiki-politically" research dirt on and then go after another editor just because he's in a content dispute with some of that wikiproject's participants (over a trivial and entirely routine, guideline-compliance move request, backed by sourcing).

As noted above, Andy Dingley then canvassed RM participants to this very ANI discussion, with a post to Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony directly under the still-ongoing RM, highlighting the ANI case, and making unreasonable accusations [61].

This is WP:FACTION behavior, in an anti-consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL in particular) direction of WP:OWNership of a topical category, and disruption and abuse of process. Wikiprojects, article talk pages, RM, and ANI do not exist for organizing and executing anti-guideline campaigns or bounty-hunting against other editors in content disputes. If it doesn't stop, maybe it's time for ArbCom to address it. These editors could even theoretically come up with some "smoking gun" of proof that their anti-hyphenation stance is correct (good luck with that, since it's already been disproven), yet their behavior would still be wrong and sanctionable. RM is a reasoned, civil discussion to assess facts, rationales, and consensus; it's not a topical "great wrongs" battlefield of ideologies and personal vendettas.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not there "to shop for another vexatious, frivolous ANI action against Dicklyon" and I resent the accusation. Nor did I make any comment whatsoever in the previous ANI. As for "here we are with the current ANI thread shortly thereafter" - did I raise this ANI? No.

My concern that in the last few weeks we have had a whole heap of undiscussed page moves (by various people, but Dicklyon most of all) and it's time for people to slow down - even stop - and consider what others might think before taking unilateral action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not anti-hyphen either. Just so you know. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Most admins resent it when people criticize admin-unbecoming things they do. Admins are held to high standards and sometimes forget this. It takes conscious effort to live up to them. You didn't file the ANI yourself, but you encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute that a handful of them care about over-much, and here we are. Getting others to do the ANI dirty work for you when one with your experience would expect community blowback for filing a frivolous complain is what we call "throwing people under the bus". I never said you participated in the earlier ANI, though you've been involved in plenty of disputes with Dicklyon and against MoS compliance. I didn't say you were anti-hyphen, either; you're just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic despite the sources not supporting its removal as any kind of special convention.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Again you claim that I "encouraged an entire wikiproject to drop the productive work they were doing and go after someone in a trivial content dispute" - nowhere have I requested that anybody do any such thing. Also, if I am "just siding with an anti-hyphen position on a particular topic", please indicate exactly where I have sided with an anti-hyphen position. I have already demonstrated (above, at 22:15, 29 January 2017) that I am not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We can start with a quote of your post at WT:WikiProject Trains. Quote: Let me guess - were the moves made by Dicklyon (talk · contribs)? If so, you might like to look through their user talk page, also several threads on WT:UKRAIL, and this discussion at ANI." How is this not a) siding with those at the wikiproject (which is hardly unanimous on the matter) to defy MOS:HYPHEN; b) misusing a wikiproject page to encourage drama-mongering against a particular editor you have an issue with; and c) further personalizing a title and style dispute? Consider this a rhetorical question for personal and community reflection. My goal here is not to get into an interminable argument with you about what your motivations may have been (I'm not a mind reader, and this is about the result of the poor decisions, not the path taken to arrive at it), or to see you punished. It is to prevent a repeat of something like this, and to get this vexatious rehash complaint against Dicklyon dismissed rapidly so we can all do something less pointless than continue to argue about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• You seem to have as little understanding of Wikiprojects as you do of Arbcom and its usefulness for threatening editors with [62]. It is far from canvassing for a project to publicise significant project-wide issues across a project. Especially not when there is a serious WP:OWN problem from Dicklyon, an editor who has no other evident engagement with or interest in railway topics. He is insistent on imposing trivial styleguides over content, doing this across a wide range of articles, and using one article talk: page (not the project) to establish some sort of "precedent" here (BTW - we don't work by precedent). In such a situation, it's entirely appropriate and useful to the project for Bermicourt to flag this on the project page. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And you could brush up on WP:TPO too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The notice violated WP:CANVASS because it was not neutral, per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. As for WP:OWN, your understanding of that policy stops short of its nutshell. It's about preventing others from editing or participating at an article; there has been zero indication that Dicklyon has tried to prevent anybody from doing either. The nutshell ends with, "Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page" - exactly what Dicklyon has been doing. Please learn something about p&g before you cite it, especially here at ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Let's get through this quickly and in an orderly fashion, Andy:
  • What Mandruss said. ^^
  • I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have, and been more involved in their development (including of MoS and naming conventions guidelines for some of them, written specifically to explain how to apply site-wide AT and MoS to the topic, instead of trying to defy them for topical-insider stroking purposes to the detriment of our general readership).
  • Dicklyon didn't propose using that one particular RM's outcome to establish a precedent for the rest of the category; Mandruss did [63]. Get your facts straight. But it's normal, everyday WP process do that anyway. We apply the reasoning in RMs to similar cases; we don't re-re-relitigate the same tired details over and over until you've browbeating your enemies into submission. It is certainly not cause for raising a bloc-voting alarm in a wikiproject to stack the outcome against everyone else on Wikipedia.
  • RM is a site-wide process specifically designed, like RfC, to bring in diverse viewpoints and thwart the "local consensus" effect. Most Wikipedians prefer that WP be written in a consistent manner instead of being stylistically PoV-forked, or we would not have AT policy, the MoS, or the naming conventions in the first place. Most editors understand that the encyclopedia is written for a general audience, and is written by people who edit all over the place and are not in a position to memorize 10,000 different topical style quirks that fans and alleged experts in this topic and that one and that other one all insist is the One True Way to write anything about their magically special topic. This is not RailfanPedia.
  • Please stop playing WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You already tried to pillory me at ANI for delivering a standardized, ArbCom-specified notice to your talk page, and it was independently closed twice against your viewpoint that it was inappropriate. You received a notice, not a threat or accusation. Suggesting that ArbCom is the place to deal with an ongoing and long-term behavioral conflict if ANI won't isn't a threat, either, it's what ArbCom exists for and why WMF impose an ArbCom on Wikipedia in the first place.
  • You could brush up on WP:TALK policy and WP:REFACTOR. Personal disputation about behavior and disciplinary actions for it does not belong on article talk pages.

Are you done now, Andy?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• To see Bermicourt's notification as inappropriate per WP:CANVASS, I can only assume that you do so (as you haven't specified) on the basis that members of a project are an inherently partisan audience. You would be wrong in that.

As to WP:OWN, Dicklyon's actions are most easily described as a form of Gish Galloping - he seeks to swamp others by sheer volubility and persistence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess you weren't done. To see Bermicourt's post as inappropriate all I have to do is read WP:CANVASS and note that the post's wording was quite non-neutral. Which I already said. And as someone else already said, WP:OWN applies to attempts by individuals and wikiprojects to control the content of a page or topical category against "outsiders"; a topical outsider like Dicklyon trying to bring a page closer to guideline compatibility and to consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia and readers' expectations is the diametric opposite of that. Andy, at what point are you going to stop playing transparent NOTGETTINGIT games? And please actually read Gish gallop; it bears no relation of any kind to listing some articles at RM, civilly discussing rationales for moving them (at which Dicklyon is actually quite concise), and providing evidence in support of those rationales, which is what Dicklyon is doing and what the RM process exists for in the first place. Now compare gish gallop to your habit of going page by page raising the same objections over and over again no matter how many times they are disproved, and injecting various straw man arguments and hand-waving as distractions. It's a much closer match.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is also the problem of Dicklyon raising bulk rename proposals repeatedly Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line#Requested move 26 January 2017 and then Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line#Requested move 27 January 2017 in the most obscure of places. Do you really think that the relevant projects need to be deliberately kept in the dark over these? After all, you've founded so many wikiprojects, you must be some sort of expert on them.Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How is that a "problem"? It's normal, intended RM process to multi-nominate moves when they raise the same question, so that the community can consider them at the same time and so that RM admins do not have to close 10, 20, 50, whatever near-identical RMs and have to act on them separately. Doing moves properly is an involved process and time-consuming, best done in groups when possible. Did you even read the previous ANI requests against Dicklyon and their conclusions at all? He was specifically instructed to use the long-form RM process for this and reminded that centralized discussion to reach consensus was the way to go, rather than moving articles around one by one in any cases that might be "controversial". Aside from the fact that the present "controversy" is entirely artificial (a product of tendentious resistance against sources and everyday English by you and a handful of others), what you're doing is demanding that ANI reverse itself on two previous decisions about the same editor, just to keep him away from "your" topic. Doesn't work that way. Finally, no one suggested keeping anyone in the dark about anything, so I'm not sure where that straw man is coming from. You seem to just be thrashing at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "I suspect I've founded and co-founded more wikiprojects than you have"

And that gives you a greater voice? (well, clearly a louder one). You are losing complete sight of how WP is constituted to operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Another straw man; I made no such argument, only pointed out that you're not in a special position to lecture me about what wikiprojects exist for and how they work. Given that I clearly understand WP is constituted to operate as an anyone-may-edit-anything collaborative project for a general audience, and all the arguments you are making are for clustered content control fiefdoms of specialists/fans writing for other specialists/fans, keeping everyone else at bay, I don't seem to be the one who's lost sight of anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You and Dicklyon are a rolling tag team to impose over-simplistic lowercasing on every article you can find: Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle#Requested move 7 January 2017 But of course, "PS: I'm an NRA member and a sharpshooter bar-9, from a multi-generation military family, so don't give me any of that "only gun and mil people would understand ..." guff. " so your voice carries so much more weight than anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Stanton keeps talking about the MOS overriding the "local consensus" of actual content decisions all over the wiki. In reality, sitewide consensus is what editors all over the site do, and the MOS itself is the local consensus of the MOS specialists who edit MOS pages and impose MOS bureaucreacy on articles, instead of editing content as content. So the CONLEVEL argument should go the opposite way of what Stanton suggests, imho.

  RGloucester had a proposal a while back (that he called "unthinkable", but that sounded like a great idea to me) of demoting the MOS from "guideline" to "suggestion" in order to stop some of this insanity. Maybe that can be done through MfD, though such a proposal should be preceded by a lot of preperatory work. In any case, the crappy reception that the MOS specialists get from generalist editors in these discussions tells me that the consensus behind the MOS is not as strong as SMC seems to think it is. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You've clearly not actually read and understood WP:CONLEVEL, which the community adopted specifically to stop wikiprojects from trying to make up their own local "rules" against site-wide consensus. You're getting generalist and specialist backward. MoS is a site-wide guideline; that's generalist by definition. A tooth-and-nail fight by a handful of topic over-controllers to go against that guideline when the sources don't back them, just because some of the specialized sources (which are not written in encyclopedic style) agree with them (see WP:CHERRYPICKING) is specialist editing, also by definition. The funny thing is, exceptions can always apply to MoS or any other guideline; MoS in various places (and COMMONNAME, in WP:AT policy) say to do what the sources do instead of what our default would be, if the sources consistently do something different from what we do. Yet the source do not in this case. WP follows the sources; why won't the railfan contingent?

    Good luck with your anti-guideline campaigning. You should probably also read WP:MFD's intro materials and WP:DE first, since they directly address why trying to get rid of guidelines the community has adopted simply because you don't like them. There is no "insanity" here. There's a lot of disruption, and about 99% of it comes from people try to defy guidelines and write WP articles to conform to the expectations of insular groups of fan forum, aficionado magazines, and ivory-tower academic journals, instead of general-audience writing. (PS: Please log in; only two editors address me habitually by me first name here, and one has already posted in this thread, so you are not gaining any anonymity.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon

I'm not sure what made Andy think it was appropriate to come here instead of joining the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Decapitalizing_Line that prompted some of the RM discussions and moves he's talking about. The only serious accusation I see is that I called User:Corinne a liar; I did not, and she did not take my comment that way, and has since changed her comments to be more credible, and has retracted her opposition to the move in question. 'Nuff said? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that a lot of editors really do not care about whether we follow title guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS; I don't understand why in not caring they feel they should jump in and add noise, like Baseball Bugs does above, but sometimes they can't resist. In the discussion about downcasing railway lines, there's some general unease, especially about process. Some have pushed me to open RM discussions even when the recommendation of WP:NCCAPS is crystal clear. Some say we can't decide these case-by-case, some say we do have to do it case-by-case. So I did a few:

• Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford_Line#Requested_move_26_January_2017 – unopposed
• Talk:New_Haven–Springfield_Line#Requested_move_26_January_2017 – widely opposed; apparently American rail articles by convention ignore WP:NCCAPS
• Talk:Redhill_to_Tonbridge_Line#Requested_move_27_January_2017 – procedurally opposed, 30 similar ones at once

The British rail fans seem of mixed mind about the 30-article multi RM. Some seem to want to stonewall to slow me down, even though they don't actually oppose any of the proposed moves. Others seem afraid that I might come back and do 30 separate RM discussions and waste even more time, which is not what I or anyone wants.

I think what will help with these is if a wider audience of editors will look and decide whether to support or oppose on the merits, independent of feelings about me, MOS, railfans, and other personalities. Maybe someone could do a "central" listing of these few to see where that takes us? Or should there be a separate discussion, perhaps an RFC, to figure out whether these articles should follow WP:NCCAPS or not? Someone more neutral than me could perhaps take on doing such a thing? Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You are inventing an opposition to changes like "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" when there is none. Maybe in the US there is, but for the UK lines I've seen no opposition to the broad adoption of the lowercase, as per the styleguide. However this is a 'broad styleguide, not a mandatory rule.

When the names are treated, in sources, as proper names then they should be capitalised. You disagree. No one "of the British railfans" is seeking any more than this.

Why you're seemingly happy to let the US lines stay as capitalised "because they're USA" but raising complaints about any opposition in the UK, that's another question. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I noted that "Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line" is unopposed; I listed it as one of the RM that came out of that discussion when someone in that discussion reverted what most of us would have taken to be uncontroversial. The ones listed at the RM on Redhill to Tonbridge line are similarly uncontroversial, yet procedurally stonewalled by the rail fans; you could help there. On Heart of Wales line, I don't recall anything about that being questioned, challenged, or reverted; did someone object to the downcasing? Where? And on the American lines, no I am not happy to leave them as an exception to WP:NCCAPS, and would welcome your help in fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with this issue. Any time of yours that's being wasted is by your own choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. You, too. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out a colon. I was responding to Dingley. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This page is not for resolving content disputes. The only relevant questions here are: What, if any, behavior p&g has been violated, to what extent (sanctionable?), and by whom? Please confine discussion to those questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that its not for discussing the substance of the content dispute. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. I'm asking admins and experienced editors to help break the stonewalling that's making me and Andy and others frustrated with the process. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

My perception is that non-behavior admin issues are more properly handled at WP:AN. There needs to be a clear separation between behavior and content, widespread disregard for that separation notwithstanding. As to the content issues, I don't think all of the non-admin WP:DR avenues have been exhausted in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this specifically qualifies as an "incident" as per the top of the page, more or less as per Mandruss immediately above. I do get the impression that this is a long, drawn-out affair with individuals in fairly entrenched positions, although obviously I could be wrong, and that isn't good, and I again like Mandruss hope that, maybe, if nothing else, starting a widely-publicized Request for Comment or similar discussion to establish guidelines as firm as possible for matters of this kind (to the degree that such is possible) would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Since all of the disputed articles/titles seem to be railway articles, perhaps the solution is for Dicklyon to take a voluntary or community-sanctioned absence from railway articles. At the very least, I would suggest that he stop arguing with !voters and commenters who disagree with him in RMs. Simply to state one's case once is entirely sufficient. In any case, it does not seem that he has any real interest in railways aside from page-moves and article titles; I think it would therefore probably be in everyone's best interest for these things to be hashed out by those who edit those articles. Softlavender (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  We need something like a "Thank" button, but with opposite valence; sort of like the different kinds of waves that drivers use to communicate positive and negative reactions to each other. So anyway, !thanks for your opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

^^^ Y'all got that he just obliquely flipped-the-bird at Softlavender, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience WP:BLUDGEON (a widely-accepted essay, but an essay nonetheless) applies to Survey sections and discourages replying to every opposition !vote. The response is to cite BLUDGEON, not to ban a user from the topic area. In any case, Dicklyon is doing no more of that than a couple of other editors, as far as I can see, and his replies in Survey sections have not crossed the BLUDGEON line. As for Discussion sections, what are they for if not discussion? Dicklyon is not being combative or argumentative in RMs.
  I further disagree that editors interested in railways are the only ones who should be involved with punctuation in article titles of railway articles, considering that the gist of the argument posited by Dicklyon and others is that we should avoid specialized usage in titles. I would be interested to read p or g supporting your position on that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a series of similar issues: United Kingdom, British vs American spelling, capitalization etc. In these ideological war-zones editors choose a POV and proceed into WP:TENDENTIOUS editing of articles that they have never edited before, nor will they ever edit again. I believe this "off topic" editing of articles creates a great deal of conflict among editors, they then end up here at ANI. I would love to see a guideline/policy that would discourage this "single purpose" behavior, even if it seems to be supported by WP:MOS Dougmcdonell (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've read though the above and, at the risk of brickbats thrown my way, find there's no concrete, actionable proposal being put forth, let alone consensus for such a proposal. A solo admin cannot (or should not) impose sanctions/warnings in such a situation so either concrete proposals should be presented or this topic should be closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose that OP Andy Dingley be trouted for bringing his content dispute to ANI and falsely accusing me of calling another editor a liar. Or just close it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unilateral user talk page bans

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

---

Wow, what a string! But I'd like to make one minor proposal as a start to sorting it out.

Whatever the background, the request from User:Kevjonesin to Dicklyon to effectively topic-ban him from his user talk page [64] was out of order IMO.

All Wikipedia pages belong to the whole community, and there are even several stages of WP:dispute resolution which oblige a user to use another user's talk page... including and obviously, ANI itself.

There are instances where it's appropriate to topic ban a user from a particular user talk page, to control harrassing in particular, but such a ban cannot be unilaterally imposed by a user, they must go through the appropriate channels. This should be quite clearly stated for the benefit of Kevjonesin and any other user tempted to follow their example. Andrewa (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, that's not exactly what happens in practice here. Editors regularly ask/tell other editors to "stay off their talk page" and that request/demand is usually honored. If it isn't, and the matter comes up at ANI, then the requesting editor can point to the posts as harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's a request and is honoured, agree there is no problem. I myself have had such requests made to me, and have honoured them, in order to de-escalate the situation... generally but not always successfully. My concern is that if it's a demand, as seems the case here, and we approve it, then this prevents access to DR and ANI. Don't you see that as a problem? Andrewa (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Not really as that's usually handled in one of two ways. Either the "banned" editor includes a request with the ANI/DR post that someone else make the notification or they go ahead and post the notification themselves, adding something like, "I am required by x process to post this on your talk page." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine if it's understood, and perhaps it is commonsense. And I certainly would not be prevented from using ANI or DR by such tactics, I'd post to their talk page anyway rather than violate the very clear procedures we have, expecting to be reverted (perhaps even politely inviting it) and then posting a diff of that reversion in the appropriate place. But if another user were to raise an issue at ANI and supply a diff explaining why they had not raised it on the user's talk page, I'd regard that as acceptable and would myself then notify the affected user on their talk page and regard all boxes as then ticked, despite a technical violation of procedures.

I seriously question whether that's the best way to do it. Far simpler IMO to affirm the principle that the community owns all pages, and that this at the very least allows ANI etc procedures to be followed, and this overrules any unilateral demand. Most users of ANI etc are not ANI regulars, and we want to make things as clear and easy for them as possible. But if we have rough consensus here on another way things should happen in practice, so be it.

And to that end, does anyone else have an opinion? Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.

Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
Yes, I have an opinion ... and so does Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages:

"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request"

Also, Andrewa, you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand with User:Dicklyon and myself. Namely that he chose to call me an 'asshole' in our very first interaction and has continued to refer back to such in following interactions rather than offer any apology or even agree to leave me alone in the future. As I see it, that Dicklyon and Checkingfax are not presently this very moment harassing my page likely has much more to do with pragmatic response to the fact that we're currently discussing the issue here at WP:ANI than it does with any sort of moral change of heart on their part. I can't think of any instance in this where they've shown any sort of contrition or self awareness of having overstepped the bounds of civility and such. Checkingfax is still arguing for his right to determine the content of my talkpage and Dicklyon is still making backhanded slurs at others. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s.— I may come back and add citation links to the above at some point.

p.p.s.— Why is this discussion taking place as a subsection of "#Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors" rather than "#Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries"?

p.p.p.s.— BTW, I'm on record stating my awareness that no one technically 'owns' there namespace on en.Wikipedia.

• [note: I'm aware my oversight of the User:Kevjonesin namespace is technically a privilege extended by Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and to some extent the Wikimedia community at large rather than true 'ownership' per se; however, so far as I'm aware it's a matter of both custom and policy/guidelines to extend fairly broad authority to editors over their own user namespace excepting instances where other explicitly stated policy may supersede. At this time I feel inclined to exercise the authority I've been given, such as it is, rather than risk further erosion by rude indifference. I may eventually be open to considering written requests for future changes to be made with the understanding that such may only be implemented either by me or in some manner having received my explicit personal approval, in advance, on a case-by-case basis.]

source of preceding quote

While no one technically 'owns' their user namespace (except perhaps User:Jimbo Wales) tradition and guidelines generally grant users the prerogative of fairly broad discretionary authority over such[65][66][67] and use of possessive terminology like 'my/your talkpage', 'my/your userpage', and 'my/your sandbox' in normal parlance amongst the community seems to reinforce such.

source of preceding quote

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, regarding:

User:NeilN, we actually seem to agree on most things. I wonder, if such unilateral topic-bans are to be accepted, is it worth setting up a template? At the risk of instruction creep, something like We seem to be on different pages, and we are getting nowhere in the current discussion. Please do not post to my talk page until further notice, unless you are specifically required to do so by some Wikipedia procedure or policy. Thank you.

Thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I endorse the idea of having a standardized notification template for such. I think it might help make things clear and unambiguous to recipients. I suggest that having such link to relevant guidelines and/or other elaboration elsewhere might be helpful. Perhaps some sort of summary subsection might be provided on the template's page so as to offer further explanation and assorted relevant guideline links and quotes in one centralized place. Stuff seen as relevant both to those who might use such a template and those who might receive it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: One of the benefits of the current practice is that it is informal. No heading to ANI to increase drama, no boilerplate templates that further annoy the editor being banned, just a personalized note along the lines of, "hey, stay off my talk page". WP:NOBAN does address many of your concerns: "although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was forgetting WP:NOBAN, good point. But I think that it supports what I was saying before.

I have a general notice on my own user talk page that says in part Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.) On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!

But that doesn't (I hope) hint at the sort of confrontation and even enforcement that, to me, seemed to be the intent of this edit. I still think that such (purported) bans are unhelpful, contrary to guidelines, and should be discouraged. Whether by a suggested template or other means, I don't really care.

Agree that we need to work towards minimising drama. By the time that notice was posted, that horse had bolted IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to amicably agree to somewhat disagree on how much talk page bans should be discouraged. I agree they shouldn't be used at a drop of a hat, or even when volatile, passionate discussions are going on, but I don't believe they're often abused and need to be more regulated. The editors involved will still likely have to interact on article talk pages but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"but they'll get a little space away from each other in userspace" ... ' Amen ' ;-) --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's also I think relevant that in this particular case, the edits in question were not addition of material, but removal of signed material that the the signatory didn't want there. I'm not sure that guidelines cover this adequately, unless the material is posted for the purposes of attack. But it seems to me polite to respect such requests. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, again I feel you've failed to mention specifics of the matter at hand ... the user making the request is indefinitely banned from editing en.Wikipedia and was in effect attempting to do so anyway via proxies. No request was presented to me in advance of unilateral action by others in namespace which guidelines state as having been deemed by the community to be under a wide latitude of my personal discretion (barring some explicit policy violation on my part). I violated no policy and was seeking in good faith to abide by and exercise prerogatives which guidelines state are to be afforded to me by custom (unless some administrative action, policy violation, or such requires the prerogative to be superseded).

The usernamespace is recognized in guidelines as being in some ways unique from other namespace and variations of customs and policy are in place which reflect such. For instance policy states that by default I am not to be viewed as engaging in edit warring when reverting others in the user namespace allowed to me. Others however do not get such latitude there, and I would even argue that when editing in another's personal namespace a 1RR (or 0RR) standard rather than a 3RR standard would be appropriate for judging behavior because the namespace holder is known to hold special privilege by default. Hence making unapproved reverts by others inherently contentious and pointless.

And Checkingfax did explicitly make three reversions of the same edit (to a closed discussion in 'my' User:Kevjonesin namespace) ... That only two of the reverts fell within 24 hours may well have more to do with the fact I was off wiki for a few days before correcting the first one than it does with any cognitive discretion on Checkingfax's part. In fact, my first impulse was to present my case to the edit warring tribunal rather than here, but as there were/are also issues of personal attacks, off site banned user influence, disregard of userspace prerogatives, and collusion at play in addition to combative reverts I chose to present my case here thinking it a more appropriate venue for a multi-faceted case. --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Next time you'll be more aware that complaining at a noticeboard about a problem you could have easily resolved is just creating extra drama, and not likely to get you a lot of sympathy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as quite disingenuous (or clueless, take you pick) coming from someone who could have avoided being named in the dispute by 'a.' not calling me an 'asshole' and reverting valid user talkpage content in the first place[68] ... and 'b.' could have accepted my offer to engage in discussion on his talkpage[69] rather than refer me back the summary[70] where he called me an 'asshole'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we can keep it up, and remind everyone what I called you and how little you have done to change my opinion. By the way, not that it excuses my language, but when I said you were being one, as opposed to are one, with "cut it out", I meant that it was a transient state under your control; about your behavior, not you. Maybe that subtle distinction was lost in the noise. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I encourage people to read your block log and decide for themselves what your opinion is worth. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's level six again (see image at left). Suggest cool it. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I admit I had not noticed that the user in question was banned, good point. I still think it would be better to politely remove the material they wanted removed. If it's needed to substantiate their crimes against Wikipedia, archive it by all means. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, if anyone had seen fit to politely ask me, I might have. But they didn't. Instead, multiple attempts were made to force changes upon the user namespace assigned to me. Namespace which is held as being in some ways unique by both Wiki custom and community guidelines. Namespace wherein the user whose name it falls under is traditionally and as a matter of policy to be given wide personal latitude barring cases where some explicit circumstances overrides such. Has such an overriding circumstance occurred? If so please point it out to me; otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would consider rising to the defense of an editor in good standing who has been confronted by an editor with an established history of contentious editing.

Please consider that Dicklyon, a user with an explicit history of edit warring, has stated that he came to my page in response to having seen my edit warring warning on Checkinfax's talkpage.[71][72] Let that sink in a second ... He was explicitly and self admittedly aware that he was making a contentious edit. Yes? When he reverted my good faith policy compliant content attribution which had been placed within the user namespace assigned to me and topped it off with an insulting edit summary he was self-admittedly explicitly aware that by doing so he was continuing an ongoing edit war, right? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are faults on both sides IMO, and I'm forming the opinion that no admin action is called for, other than a warning to both sides.

But I may be a lone voice in criticising you, and if so I'll accept that as consensus against me, and still go with a warning to Dicklyon. But they at least have shown some willingness to take responsibility for their unhelpful actions.

Our only aim here is to improve Wikipedia. I know it is difficult to respond politely and constructively when others are being downright rude. I've had a bit of it myself here, and the last time I myself raised an issue here at ANI of being personally attacked, two non-admins chimed in and said it was clearly attack and a warning at least was warranted, but there is no evidence that any other admin even looked at it before it was auto-archived. No warning was given, and the perpetrators subsequently succeeded in achieving the "no consensus" result that they were seeking, and we will never know how much their disruptive tactics helped in that. That was hard. But the world did not end.

You've made your case. Leave it to others to assess it, but please also look at what you might do better. And have a good look at Graham's pyramid above for a start. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't even the right section for Kevjonesin to be making any kind of case; he – and you – just injected a lot of noise into an otherwise dormant discussion unrelated to him, so you both could say something bad about me and hope it would hurt me. More behavior of the sort I originally asked him to cut out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, but your allegation on my motives is both false and baseless. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, good; I'm glad to be wrong on that point. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking again at how you started this section, it does almost look like you were trying to defend me; though it would have worked a lot better to do nothing, instead calling attention to K's rants and inviting more. Anyway, sorry I lumped you in there on noticing that you started the section; I was too hasty. Also note that I posted to K's user talk page exactly once; whether I ever do again probably won't have much to do with his dis-invitation, but so far I have not gone against his request. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at it, the more it looks like you made a simple blunder and started this subsection in the wrong section. Maybe you want to move it into the section where K is complaining about me and Checkingfax instead of here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And it's easy to see how you made that mistake, following on the heels of K's bird post, now that I look. It's been a mess; let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It could have gone in either section. In hindsight, yes, it might have been better in the other, but I don't think we can fix that now, and again in hindsight I don't think it would have achieved any more there than it has here. It went here because I thought this was the more important of the two closely related discussions. It clearly didn't have any chance of helping in either. I need to learn from that, and I'm still wondering exactly what I have learned!

The intention was not to defend you, or to attack you. The intention was to start to untangle a very complex discussion by suggesting a decision on an issue that I found simple and straightforward and expected to go to a quick consensus.

I was quite wrong, obviously. I still think Wikipedia is the poorer for not affirming that nobody here owns even their own user page, let alone their user talk page, which I thought was a simple, basic, profound and very valuable principle, and which could and should avoid much of the wrangling above (in both sections) if we had kept it, but there you go. It's not the end of the world. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, no big deal, though the discussion you were trying to untangle was not the one here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

They seem tangled together to me... even before i arrived, that is. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, I noticed the big pink header on your talkpage and it struck me that you'd brought up some great points:

Please don't censor my talk page. Just because you don't support what someone else is saying is no reason to remove it. Is it now? (You wouldn't think I had to say that, but I have learned otherwise.)

On the other hand, if the edits you are removing are by banned users (or their socks), then please feel free to do it. That's not censorship, it's administrative drudgery, and I thank you for taking it on. But if there's doubt as to who the contributor really is, or if the proposed ban is not yet in force, or both, better to leave me to clean up my own page. (And again I would have thought that was obvious to all, but have learned otherwise.) A non-abusive heads-up on the antics of the contributor, in reply to what they have said or done here, is always appreciated. TIA!

[preceding passage quoted from User_talk:Andrewa; emphasis retained from the original]

Excellent food-for-thought, brother man. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Neal would you be so kind as to consider closing this, "Unilateral user talk page bans" subsection? I think fair argument might be made that it serves more as a satellite of the recently closed "Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries" section than it does as a truly affiliated subsection of "Continuing styleguide trivia disruption from Dicklyon, now becoming simple attacks on editors". Please give the proposal some consideration. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a "satellite"; or perhaps an asteroid or meteor. Time to close; the whole thing, too, that would have archived by now without K's interjection. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Although I think a formal close is better than just allowing it to auto-archive. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, any modifications to current practices should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines or WP:VPR, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree.

Not sure whether it's worth raising there. It seems to me at least possible that this is an undiscussed change to what was once long-established practice, but I could be wrong, and such things do occur over time.

Yes, those are two good places to discuss this one further, and this is not. We seem to have a sort of consensus of silence here supporting your view on it. I accept that. Thanks for your input. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Not notifying users about their pages being deleted

Today I received a request on my talk page to undelete a page which I had moved back to Draft. They couldn't find it at all, and when I checked their contribs I saw it had been deleted. SwisterTwister was the user who added the CSD tags, but never notified them, so I can understand their confusion.

This is not the first time this has happened. A lack of notifying the creator for a set of AFDs resulted in this rather exhausting ANI thread. In it were several admonishments for lack of notification when a page was AFD'd. I've left him a couple of notes to this effect, to no avail.

My main concern is the prolific rate of editing in which ST performs. Just in the last month, he has started 36 AFDs, 81 MFDs, 3 SPI cases ([73]), and at least 500 CSDs without a single user talk notification.

I'm not concerned with whether he has been right or wrong in his nominations, but the fact that there are at least 600 users (in the last month alone!) who might have no idea why their page simply disappeared. As a helper in the IRC channel, I see countless people coming in asking how they can locate their draft; if they don't remember the exact title and/or it's been deleted, we can't always help them. His actions are incredibly BITEy, they cause users (usually copyvio offenders) to repeat their mistakes in the future, and it discourage editors from continuing to help out at Wikipedia. I know the XFD/CSD guidelines use "may" and "should" (though the {{db-g12}} template says "ensure they were notified"), but for someone who has such a tremendous impact on new users I think an exception should be made.

The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages; it means zero extra effort on his part, since the script will automatically notify the user in question. It also means the incredibly vague nomination statements ("N", "None of this suggests a notable article", "(C)" or just nothing at all), will be replaced with something useful. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Both WP:AFD and WP:CSD explicitly say it should be done / is considered standard practice, so imho those not doing it should have good reasons why not. Asking this user (and others) to use a script that both automates tagging and notifying users seems like a sensible idea. In the long run, we probably should consider making notifying users a rule. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

To add something else here, I've long been concerned that ST seems to ignore the vast majority of news users who post on his talk page, asking genuine questions about how to improve their declined articles. I would rather he reviewed half the articles he does if it means he gets time to respond to those users who ask him questions. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I was likewise concerned that SwisterTwister appeared to simply ignore the users asking questions on his user page, however after some investigation (and "watching" his talk page to ensure that this was a consistent pattern), he actually almost always replies with a comment on their AfC draft instead, presumably because they want to keep discussion all in one place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to make notification mandatory, then the CSD language needs to be changed. "There is strong consensus", "you can", "suggested template" are not the wording you need for that. Look at the editnotice on this page "You must notify the user on their talk page" -- that's the kind of language that's needed. Change the language to make it mandatory, but don't blame editors if they chose not to do something that isn't required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I proposed such a change for WP:CSD at its talk page. Funny how for more than a decade this was not really a problem since almost all NP patrollers used tools that automated such notifications. I think it's the first time I heard about a user not doing so on such a large scale. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Twinkle also gives the option of not notifying users, Other than "Either notify users or face a block" I can't think of any better options - Clearly new users are confused and clearly this user has no intention of notifying other users so as I said I see no better alternative. –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notifying users has always been a "suggestion", not a policy, and WP:Perennial proposals explicitly states this. There has never been a solidified consensus to make it a policy because it's a question of who can be notified, at times, it could be a now-banned user or a CU-confirmed sock, therefore there's no need. For example, such bot-spam accounts I find daily, I never notify because it's all clear unnecessary server-logging, a bot-spam account is not going to know the difference of what we as an encyclopedia accept. There's no serious need for admin intervention here because there have been no policy violations. As it is, any attention to my deleted contribs will find over 80% of it is where the user had no intentions at all because it was simply so blatant. As for the SPIs, I notified at least one of them, but the others were not, simply because they were so obvious, such as Scorpion293's of which was confirmed as a paid puppeteer. Anyone who asked why it was deleted had not noticed the deletion log located in their same article, which either states "Unambiguous advertising" or "Copyviolation", consisting of a link then to our policies. Making anything of it is clear WP:BUREACRACY. As for the MfD nominations, they repeatedly submitted so often, they never showed they understood our policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• But why not do it anyway? It is courteous and, with Twinkle, takes no time at all. The impression otherwise is that you are flying under the radar. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• (I do agree re: SPI, though. I rarely notify for those, mainly because of the BEANS thing.) - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would notify if there was a reasonable chance the user showed they understood our policies, but for example, about the AfC Drafts, some of the recent ones were involving nearly 10 or 11 resubmissions, so there's no convincing signs they will listen to a deletion notification after 11 times. When the user shows they understand, either in a talk page message or at the Draft, I will then comment at the Draft and state the concerns again, and if they're refused, that's why I nominate for deletion. Also, WP:Perennial proposals itself, stated that all users should place articles of interest in either their watchlist or similar list. Also, nearly every case of MfD-nominated, showed the user came back to the Draft and noticed the deletion, put aside the ones who were CU-blocked or spam-banned. I used to frequently notify users each time, but after time, it seemed it was simply no use if they simply restarted their campaigns again, thus wasting not only my time, but the server time and space. For example, with Scorpion293, I opened his SPI after his comments, simply to see what the comments would be, or else I would've simply gone to SPI in the first place, without notification. I've found no history where such a "Users absolutely must be notified" was ever close to being a fundamental WP pillar. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Server space isn't an issue. I doubt that server time is, either. The rest is irrelevant if you're mostly dealing with new contributors. You can't expect them to know about watchlists, perennial proposals or anything else like that. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Considering the number of times other editors have complained here about your 'work flow' and the very large number of nominations/patrols you make, it would be advisable for you to follow best practices rather than the rules don't require it and I don't feel like it. Things that are not issues when they are done a few times can often become problematic when they are done hundreds or thousands of times a week. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, to add to my comment earlier, the repeated "N", "None of this suggests a notable article" (which actually explains itself), is because I especially them in speedy deletions, which mean they'll be deleted quickly. Also, N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means. Anyone of this would also follow the commonly used "Ce" (for copyediting), "sp" (spelling), etc. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but N is for AfD because it's obviously stated what it means - I have never seen another user use a single-letter designation to denote that they have nominated a page for deletion. Sure, I've seen "AFD" but never "N". It is far from obvious. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not obvious to me, either. But, in any event, the point about newbies applies again. If you know you're dealing with them then you have to make allowances. We probably all should, all the time, but we definitely should not all the time. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not good for new editor retention (although most of the people who have not received a notification are either spamming or are paid editors). The use of useless edit summaries by SwisterTwister is unhelpful, that's a behavioural issue we can insist they remedy whilst the failure to notify is unhelpful but BMK probably has it right when he says it's optional and ST is technically doing nothing wrong by not making use of the option.
  I'm far more concerned by Sam Walton's concerns, the lack of notifications could well be a symptom of hurried, rushed reviews. The failure to respond satisfactorily to queries from editors about reviews and deletions is a major concern.
  I'd hope ST would therefore agree willingly to use descriptive edit summaries, to leaving more notifications and above all, to provide far more detailed responses to those asking questions. Nick (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: as per above, SwisterTwister appears to leave comments back at the AfC draft instead of on his talk page, so the appearance of a lack of response to questions (at least re. AfC drafts) is merely a facade- I noticed this as an AfC reviewer myself, as there would seemingly be random comments from SwisterTwister across a wide range of AfC drafts that weren't linked to a review, some investigation showed that these were actually in response to comments left on his talk page. It might perhaps be confusing for editors checking for a response on his talk page rather than their draft, but he is responding, at least to questions about AfC drafts. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is where I get a little confused about this entire issue, Jcc. ST is perfectly happy to use AFCH for editing/reviewing drafts, but cannot/will not use Twinkle to notify users that their pages are being nominated for deletion? As far as scripts go, it's just as easy to use one as it is the other (moreso, given that with Twinkle you don't have to edit the AFD log directly). As mentioned by someone else, there are a ton of upsides, and almost no downsides. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's rude not to notify page creators that their article has been nominated for deletion, and to purposely do so is the opposite of collaborative. It's happened to me, and when I complained to the nominating editor, they self-righteously woofed that it's not required by policy. Sad that we would need such a basic social courtesy to be mandated by a written policy. What a great way to drive off contributors. - MrX 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Also, although I have never maintained a CSD or PROD log and I have no plans to because it's tedious, I will note that over 3/4 of my PRODs recently alone have been confirmed advertisements by either long-ago paid advertisers or recently CU-banned ones (given it's damaging enough keeping such paid spam for long here), so our policies would apply WP:RBI in it alone, given any notifications would only mean harboring attention. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You're grasping at straws now. And if you really wanted to keep a log then Twinkle can do it for you (optional). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While (again) I am not calling into question your accuracy with page deletion notices, WP:RBI only deals with obvious vandalism, so poorly-written or non-GNG pages don't meet this criteria. Additionally, since you keep no logs, do not notify the user, and you use pretty much the same PROD notice every time, I find it very hard to believe that you know for a fact that 75% of the PROD/CSDs you hand out are from verified socks and/or blocked paid editors. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a fact because both my now deleted contribs and the PROD that are currently still pending and standing are in fact from paid contributions, either shown from their contributions or by their own words. I'll even note the fact it was a paid advertisement in the PROD itself, making it easier to see. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realize paid editing is allowed (provided adequate disclosure), right? That doesn't make them automatically exempt from being notified that their work has been nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case, all users had specifically not confessed their COI payment and subsequently were banned (all last 3 cases had enough attention confirming this was the solution) and also CU-puppeting, thus there's no use if they're going to blatantly violate our policies when they know it. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Would you please start notifying users when you nominate their articles for deletion? It's a widely-accepted practice that costs you nothing and it will have a net positive benefit to the project. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this modest request.- MrX 21:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI seriously doubt any admin is going to act on this thread. The reason is simple: while notifications are considered a best practice that are not and never have been required. We might prefer that this user use them more often, but they don't have to, any more than they have to use edit summaries. The only way this can be something enforceable is if someone proposes a formal restriction requiring this user to notify, and that proposal receives sufficient support from the community to become an enforceable editing restriction. I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this, but as it stands right now it's the only way anyone can be forced to do notifications. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but I was hoping they might bow to the morality of the point, especially given they haven't really got a decent reason not to do so. It seems, however, like that was a vain hope. I'll stop using edit summaries from now on. ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries are also not required but I remember an ANI case a month or so ago where someone was brought here because he didn't use summaries and the end result was that he was forced to use edit summaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does potentially set a dangerous precedent when we tell one of our most prolific editors that they don't have to follow best practices. Sitush is making a POINT, but what if everyone who interacts with ST decides not to add edit summaries or notify users? I hope, to echo Sitush, that ST realizes that best practices are put in place for a reason, and the handful of outliers which he's mentioned are not the primary purpose of the notifications, but it's for everyone who has complained to one editor or another about their drat simply disappearing into thin air. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Sir Joseph: I have located the thread where a user was required to use clearer edit summaries.

There seems to be some consensus growing in this discussion that never notifying a user is more harmful than occasionally notifying a blocked sock. It's not like SwisterTwister has to bend over backwards to notify users - just install Twinkle! I still haven't seen a reason given as to why he doesn't use it, yet is happy to use AFCH for draft reviewing (so it's not an "I hate scripts" thing). Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all arguing that this isn't a real issue, but you can't expect admins to suddenly enforce a policy that doesn't actually exist. So, again, what would be needed would be either to change the policy, (which is being tried at theis very moment at WT:CSD) or propose an editing restriction on this particular user and try and get consensus for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, are you saying I should formally start a "Proposal", or would an uninvolved admin willing to close be able to read through the concerns and (if consensus) place an editing restriction/specification? Because the latter is definitely my position on the matter, and the reason I started this thread (The easiest thing to do would be to ask ST to use Twinkle when they nominate pages). Primefac (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

So far the only consensus I can see here is that ST should probably be notifying in many cases where the currently do not, I do not see anything more specific than that, so yes, if you want any actual action on this I would again suggest that a formal proposal for a logged editing restriction would be the way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Beeblebrox 100%. For myself I add: Swister Twister should be encouraged to clearly explain his deletion nominations, namely with short but descriptive edit summaries, as that is good collaboration practice - with all of us, not just the editors who might be not receptive to comments. As to notifying users I see nothing wrong. (disclaimer: I rarely do any deletion nominations, but when I do I even more rarely notify users) Quite simply, if notifying users should be mandatory, then it is a clear case for a technical solution, not a 'social' solution. It should not be a editor to laboriously notify editors, it should be a automated notification sent to (almost) all article editors and watchers (or something along that line). Nabla (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a technical solution called Twinkle. As an admin, you absolutely should be notifying users if you nominate their articles for deletion. It's not laborious. - MrX 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I will agree with the other editors. I see no reason why anyone should complete an AFD, a complicated process, other than by using Twinkle, which takes care of all of the steps. When Twinkle is used, the default is to notify the creator. Just use Twinkle and notify the article creator (even if they are a sockpuppet). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, do you actually have any reasonable objections to using Twinkle? For example. I have no idea how well it works on mobile devices and whether or not that is your preferred means of editing. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MrX:, Twinkle is not part of MediaWiki, when I mean technical I mean as part of the main software, like in having a "delete" button, no options, that's it, for everyone. @Robert McClenon: It works fine that way since 2004 or so :-) I do so very few nominations it is not much work, conversely, as it IS some work, it keeps me from doing more nominations. Also, I like to know my edits... I think I gave it a try once long ago and it felt weird, to me it is not "the wiki way". Also, the article creator does not have any special ownership, if anyone, the ones that should be warned are the ones watching it. @Sitush: I am not Swister Twister ;-) Nabla (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Notification isn't required. You can call it polite if you want, but it's not required. If we want to make it a requirement, change the policy. Explain in the edit summary? Why? If there is a AfD, the reason is there. If it's a CSD, the reason is in the category used. In my view, ST does more good for the project in getting rid of articles that don't belong than alleged harm by hurting the feelings of some theoretical newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• D'uh. But they're unlikely to see the AfD or CSD. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Niteshift36, these aren't theoretical newbies. As mentioned in my OP, and as I've seen many times on IRC, there are many users who are confused and/or angry about their page being deleted with no notice given; their pages just vanish. Now, clearly it's not entirely SwisterTwister's fault, but due to his editing practices there is probably a larger number of well-meaning new editors who have quit because their hard work has been deleted with no warning. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the responses talk about what amount to theoretical newbies. Granted, there may be a few you can actually show, but much of this is about people who might be effected. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Here's how I handle the problem: before deleting an article/draft, I check and see who nominated it for speedy deletion. If it's SwisterTwister, I notify the page creator myself instead of performing the deletion. That way, the contributor gets at least some time to act. It's a waste of admin time to have to do this, but I'm not comfortable with deleting in cases where the page creator has not been notified. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Great. So SwisterTwister worries about wasting server time and space but we have an admin having to waste time trying to do "the right thing". And admin time is, I think, in much shorter supply. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not an optimal solution, but it also isn't the first time I've noticed that Dianaa has more patience than I do. I do usually check the creator's talk page after I delete something, and if there is no notification there I will usually drop the appropriate warning or notice with twinkle. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In May 2016, I asked SwisterTwister to notify creators while nominating articles for any form of deletion, but they did not bother responding to my note or start notifying. Now if I see an article nominated by SwisterTwister I just don't act on it, I let another admin decide. Sadly, this behavior is a nuisance and should be stopped. —SpacemanSpiff —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I've asked him about that multiple times on IRC, but he's ignored me every time. It seems to me that he doesn't like criticism, which is understandable, but when many people are suggesting that you should do something, you should at least respond to them before you have an ANI made about you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to ease the extra work put in by admins, to notify users when their pages have been deleted, and to decrease the amount of work he has to do (by eliminating the need to actually edit the WP:AFD page directly). I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. I am specifically proposing Twinkle because ST has declared that their time is valuable and they cannot be bothered spending extra time notifying users (which is fair), and Twinkle does that automatically. This minimizes the BITE factor of not notifying the users, and aligns more with best practices as mentioned on all of the deletion venues instructions. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. There is literally no downside to ST using Twinkle instead of manually editing, and fixes many of the issues I've seen regarding their deletion-tagging practices. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, if we want it to be mandatory, make the changes in the process, not just imposed on a single editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment in which I hoped SwisterTwister would voluntarily agree to do this. This should also include the provision that he may not disable notifications in the Twinkle settings.- MrX 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support its not that big a deal to be expected to use Twinkle. If anything it makes ST's life easier. It will also hopefully save more ANI threads. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have been concerned about this for some time—the lack of notifying the creator, the lack of a useful edit summary, and the failure to respond to new users posting on ST's talk page. ST is a prolific AFC contributor, and for many new editors is the first face they see. This is a step in the right direction. Bradv 02:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I support SwisterTwister being obliged to notify in each case, whether via Twinkle or manually. In spite of notifications not being mandatory, it's the right and polite thing to do. This behaviour is likely costing us editors, and it's wasting the valuable time of others – either the admin who notifies on their behalf, or the Teahouse host or help page patroller who responds to the editor's query and has to try to figure out where the missing page went. SwisterTwister should not be obligated to use Twinkle, but if he does not, he needs to notify manually for each nomination. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Adding: If he does his nominations manually, he needs to leave an informative edit summary when he places the deletion nomination on the article/draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Hopefully, they can do it using Twinkle but if there is some technical reason why that is not possible then I'm afraid it will just have to happen the hard way. I think my reasoning is clear enough from my prior comments in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because of; I am proposing that SwisterTwister use Twinkle to perform all PROD/CSD/XFD actions. That is plain and simply unacceptable. Editors choose which tools they want to use and which tools they do not want to use. You cannot force someone to use tools they don't want to use.
  Despite that, I agree that ST's approach is bordering on being disruptive; at least one admin has stated they take additional time solely when deal with ST's CSD's and another has stated that they avoid them wholesale. This is on top of the already mentioned BITEness of a newbie editor having their work deleted and not given even a simple notification. I do, however, think that notifications should never be mandatory (or even recommended) for G3, G5, especially G10 and, for obvious redundancy reasons, G7. So while I can support requiring ST to make notifications, these requirements would be limited to genuine attempts at contribution. So, if I was going to support this restriction it would need to be clear that notifications are only going to be required for contributions that were made in good faith.
  Furthermore it would need to be extremely clear that ST can decide for themselves how they are going to meet those requirements. I can't tell whether the TWINKLE part is meant to mandate or recommend - I read it as mandate initially Actually, that is the meat of the proposal, so it is definitely intended to mandate. Otherwise, forcing ST to notify the page creator at all times risks doing a lot of damage even if it would also do a lot of good. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So would you oppose if we just said ST had to notify by some means or another, rather than specifically by Twinkle? And, since we're supposed to assume good faith, what is the problem there? I've not got involved in past ANI reports about ST but this one really is at the limit. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, SwisterTwister has expressed a strong disinterest in taking more time out of their day to go to editor's talk pages and add notices manually. I took this into account when I made the proposal, because using Twinkle saves him time just as much as it saves admins like myself and Diannaa from having to verify that a G12 notice was actually given. If ST says he's willing to notify without using Twinkle, I'm all for it, but I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To clarify myself here Sitush and Primefac; I agree that ST should notify good faith content contributors and indeed could support general enforcement of them doing so; just not for G3, 5, 7 (self-notificaton is dumb) and 10. However, while I can support making this mandatory, I cannot support telling them how to do it. It is one thing to say "you will notify article creators when you XFD their good faith work" and quite another to say "you will notify article creators using TWINKLE when you XFD their good faith work". So until the twinkle part is struck or clarified to be a recommendation only for ST's own benefit, I must oppose the measure in its entirety. Even without TWINKLE, I see no value in forcing them to notify attack page creators, vandals, and banned/blocked users and potentially see downsides to notifying them as well; edit-warring over the tag, creating new pages with similar content to "save" their work, spreading the vandalism to new pages, etc, etc. Editors can generally use their own heads to work out when a notification is needed and when it is not. That's why CSD "protocol" (I voted against the measure on the CSD talk page, hence why I am singling out CSD here) is to recommend notifications and not require them. Because ST isn't doing this, requiring them to do so to some extent is fine, but, not in its current form. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You make valid points regarding G5/7, and I can agree that there is little point in doing so (and no one would fault him for not notifying a G5 user). Unfortunately with no logs (and having no interest in trawling through deleted edit summaries), there is no way to see how many pages he nominates that are in those categories. I do know, however, that he nominates an awful lot of U5/A7/G11/G12 pages, which should always receive notifications (in addition to the 100+ XFD nominations made every month). While DENY and other all-caps shortcuts say we shouldn't feed the trolls, is it really that big a deal if a handful of talk pages get deletion notifications?

At the end of this, though, you've said your piece, and I respect that (I won't belabour the point any further). If consensus does follow your idea ("must inform, can do how he likes") I will support that; my main concern is just getting notifications out there. I just don't see it happening without Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've revised my vote somewhat to better reflect my concerns - mostly format and clarity. I was tempted to reduce to plain oppose, but, I read your proposal again and I have to stick with strong oppose. The meat of the proposal is getting ST to use twinkle which does notifications immediately. That has its benefits, but, it crosses the line of what can and should be done. Thanks for your replies and explanations. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support a restriction of having to notify page creators when nominating an article for deletion (any type) but I'm not overly keen on forcing them to use Twinkle. A few months back I'd suggested to SwisterTwister that they decide when a notification may not be necessary, they have shown that they aren't able to do that. Therefore, a restriction like this is necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose while I think he should notify, if it's currently not required then what authority do we have to single him out? If you want it required then change policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:RESTRICT and a recent precedent re: edit summaries. Have you read the thread in its entirety? -Sitush (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

He singled himself out by his refusal to follow the basic process that virtually every one else follows. The authority comes from our standing as a self-governed community.- MrX 02:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing he is doing is against policy. If you want notifications to be mandatory, then make it mandatory. I do think he's wrong for not doing it, and when I nominate I use Twinkle, but to punish someone for following the rule is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Contra Niteshift36 and Sir Joseph, we don't need new policy (instruction creep) since there is no recurrent issue except with this editor. As MrX says, he singled himself out, so a singular remedy (wp:restrict) is perfectly valid. There may be occasional instances where it's better to not notify, so it's fine to leave an opening for that. But ST seems to be trying to game the system and turn "occasional" into "always". Per NOTBURO we shouldn't go along with exploiting loopholes like that. ST doesn't seem to be able to accept "occasional" so the alternative that should apply to him is not "always" but "never". 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I actually agree that it is creep. That is exactly why I opposed the proposal to make it mandatory at the CSD talk page. Requiring this individual editor to do something not required by policy is essentially process creep. The effect is the same in the end. So if it is to be required for him, just require it for everyone. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm saying the opposite: it's instruction creep to dictate a universal approach to something that most editors can handle by situational judgment and discretion. If some particular editor is found to repeatedly abuse their discretion, the remedy is restrict that editor, not hobble the other editors who don't have that problem. See also WP:CIR. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• We both recognize that requiring it would be creep. I disagree with the notion of singling him out for this "requirement".Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:CSD: "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed prior thereto). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).". —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand that Spiff, but the key word there is "should" be warned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• A must would require "all", but "should" would include most, and I'm mostly concerned about A7s, G12s where the creators are ill informed newbies (this is also applicable to some G11s). They are the ones who need a notification explaining why their article was deleted or is likely to be. Many people react differently, some run away when there's no explanation, some create socks to do the same thing and some do read the explanations and reform. There's one editor whose early contributions I deleted and subsequently short term blocked for copyvios, but they read the notifications and reformed themselves and are a prolific contributor to audited content now. I don't have any problems with no G5 notifications or even in the case of extreme spam, but as I requested ST last year, the A criteria deletions need some sort of explanation for newbies. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I have it right, there's SHOULD in something like the sense of RFC 2119 (they always write it in caps like that) and you want to change it to MUST. I don't see a need for that since we've done ok with SHOULD almost all the time. It's completely normal to single someone out for restrictions if they have trouble in an area where other people find their way ok. The alternative is to constrain everyone, when only the one person has exhibited a problem. I'm sympathetic with ST about spammers etc., but if it's inconveniencing other editors who find themselves placing notices out of felt duty to other humans, then we have to say ST's approach isn't workable. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support  SwisterTwister refuses to voluntarily take responsibility for cooperating with article creators, so the community should step in to create boundaries.  The problem with cryptic nominations should also be corrected, as "N" might not be noticed in a watchlist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was clear above who I notified, which are the people who understand how WP works, there's no sensibility in notifying the people who will sock and continue advertising hence those are not people who are "cooperating", my last PRODs an hour ago show the same persistent paid advertising we've encountered so heavily recently. For example, I was especially not going to notify the now-banned user Kavdiamanju after their spam campaigns. If it wasn't that I purposely watch for the robo-spam, there wouldn't be any other basis for putting such quick words. Also, as for the "N", anyone who edited that article would naturally look into it and especially once they see a "deletion template", which seems to always be the case when it's a still active user. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you've got other editors following you around to clean up after you, it's obvious that your judgment is being found wanting; and making frequent edits that trigger such interventions is disruptive by definition. So you're being asked to cut it out, or as the case may be, told to cut it out. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you logged in to your account? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly because they don't have an account; they've been a relatively active IP editor for several months now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This bickering is not helpful - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC) (nac)

@Mr rnddude: I think "misleading, counterproductive and ill-informed" is a very kind and slightly euphemistic description of your contributions on WP:ANI (not to mention my talkpage). I do not think you are intentionally misleading people; I think you post these comments without doing any research. The result is that you cause drama and mislead others. Maybe it is best if you don't post at WP:ANI, and stay away from other people's drama. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC) The Quixotic Potato ... Please don't project your issues onto me. Your above posts are irrelevant to the substance of this thread. They are devoid of meaningful discourse and are currently uselss. Even if you are correct about the IP which seems extremely far fetched given no evidence. Furthermore, the IP has made exactly one dozen comments on this page alone. Your statement stands as an accusation without base. As for your talk page ... I am disheartened to hear that you have learned nothing from that experience. It is your own posts you should worry about and in fact I implore you to do so. You came here explicitly to start drama on a entirely dramaless thread. If you want a look at unproductive (and unpleasant) then please review both of your comments here, then review all of mine. I will repeat it in explicit terms; if you make an accusation bring evidence. I told you this unequivocally last time, when you received a two week block, and you have summarily ignored it. I note you read my particularly long post on your talk page. You seem to have taken substantive issue with it, indeed you seem to have held a grudge for a month (nearly two) if you're bringing it up now. If you have issues about it User talk:Mr rnddude is open as always to anyone for anything. (I apologize for the dual ping, this is as a result of my comment being deleted in an unrelated edit and now restored). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Stop digging. If you would understand the situation then you would apologize to me. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC) You know, that might be the case The Quixotic Potato - unlikely though, and you're deep underground if I am digging. However, I cannot understand the situation unless you give me something to work from that might explain it. My initial comment was an opportunity to expand upon what you said and bring something I could look at (or rather another editor or admin could look at) and then deal with. Not to swing an attack round at me. I have seen the above IP comment on different AN/I threads and even an arbcom case that I am tangentially aware of - I recognized the IP from the arbcom case personally and only just noticed them lurking in other threads. From my perspective you are slinging an accusation without evidence, if several admins, an entire arbcom panel, CU's and Oversighters haven't noticed anything the least bit suspicious over the course of three months, then you must concede that it might look odd if somebody came in guns blazing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC) It is offtopic here, and probably difficult to explain over the internet. Communication that is limited to text has disadvantages. But I am 100% sure that we would understand eachother better if we could talk IRL over a cup of tea. BTW there is a big difference between an accusation and a question from someone who is curious. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seems like a reasonable request to solve this problem, which is very real. If SwisterTwister cannot be induced to notify in any other way, and I do believe not leaving notifications is a serious matter, this makes it easy for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support and if SwisterTwister does not want to use twinkle, an alternative is to manually notify the people involved. Inexperienced people may get away with not notifying, but ST is experienced. Some kinds of pages do not need notifications, such as G7 ot G6, however prod, G13, A7, A1, A3, AFDs should all be nominated for sure. It is helpful for other editors to see the notifications on the person's talk page too as it assists in undeletion or seeing problems. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not care whether they use Twinkle or do it manually (so long as the edit summary is at least marginally informative), but in general they have to notify people that their articles might be deleted. It's just common sense. I don't see a problem with carving out an exception for G5s and G7s, however. /wiae 🎄 12:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because he doesn't use Twinkle and shouldn't be forced to do so. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Perhaps this proposal should be re-phrased to state that ST must notify people manually each time instead. Or use Twinkle. First Light (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support And in reply to the above - this is like the the 5th deletion related complaint about ST. If they would just follow common convention and basic courtesy, there would not be a need. So frankly a restriction that allows them to keep doing what they want to do without in fact 'restricting' them at all seems quite fair. At this point I no longer have any good faith given the ongoing issues and assume they just a)want their nominations to fly under the radar, and b)have no intention of abiding by community norms. Again a restriction that forces them to follow that without stopping their work is really not a burden. If it *is* a burden to them to use basic courtesy in their editing, well the next option is an outright ban from those actions they cant seem to do without pissing people off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common practice, courtesy, so easy to do with Twinkle, don't bite the newcomers, new editor retention, transparency, just for starters. First Light (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors are free to use whatever tools they like, and use their discretion on notification. For example, you should not notify the author on a G10, as that increases the likelihood that the defamatory material will be reposted. Others have already mentioned other criteria where notification may be redundant or harmful. SwisterTwister should be encouraged to use clearer edit summaries, and default to a notification when it is unclear, but this is a blunt solution, which is not acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Blunt solutions are used when editors are unwilling to follow reasonable alternatives. People have 'encouraged' ST plenty of times now. Its not had any noticeable effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatives to what? Following the rule? If you want people to be required to notify then make the policy change. As it stands now, you are punishing someone for following the rules. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A rule such as WP:CONSENSUS ? - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If a rule is not working for us, it's okay to ignore it. This is one of the five pillars even. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::Golly gee, then let's throw out all rules and determine how to proceed by mob rule at ANI, shall we? This is a preposterous solution. If you want notifications so badly, then change the policy, which I will be in favor of. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the interesting things about the opposers here. They're objecting on BURO grounds but actually do think ST is acting in a sub-optimal way, even though within policy. So apply some common sense, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• So, based on what I read, anyone who is opposing it is not applying common sense? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I said that already that ST should change. And I said that in the other case where we forced someone to use edit summaries even though it's not required. If something is not required, then it's not required. If you want it required, don't do it on a case by case basis, make it required all across the board. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that ST should change, but don't like this proposal, would you consider bringing forward an alternate proposal? There's a clear consensus here that something needs to change, but just voting oppose to this proposal won't accomplish anything. Bradv 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is needed. It still doesn't solve the problems of ST ignoring virtually everyone who asks about their draft on his talk page, but at least people will actually get notified if their page was deleted. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  ThePlatypusofDoom, as mentioned earlier, ST responds to draft questions on the draft itself, not on his talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  Primefac: Good point(although I prefer responding on talk pages), I struck out the relevant material. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Yes it's not policy to notify anyone however it's courtesy and it's common bloody sense, I'm sure if ST had articles or files nominated without any notification then they'd probably get a little pissed (I certainly would be), It's just courtesy and common sense. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - We haven't yet heard from the subject editor either why he doesn't use Twinkle or why he doesn't notify. Given the non-use of Twinkle, I can see that notifying is work, but it is still part of the job unless there is a reason not to notify, and there are no reasons not to notify for most speedy reasons and for PROD and for AFD. So why doesn't he use Twinkle when it would do the notifying automatically? Is there a reason why you don't use Twinkle, which would simplify your job, and why you don't notify? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't used Twinkle because there were some parts that concerned me including the fact the it has room for mistakes. I can openly use it at my choice but I never liked the fact there's no use in notifying a user who is so blatant with "Thank you for visiting our company website today, let me show you our company services". For example, what's our solution for when a user starts operating multiple accounts to advertise simultaneously? We notify the first account? SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging SwisterTwister on the off chance that he's not watching this thread to see the question. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor: Support. Per the reasons listed above by other users. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• support it may not be policy, but it is certainly courteous to tell an editor that their article has been nominated for deletion, the fact that ST nominates so many is what makes this an exception. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This seems like an end-run around community consensus, and peculiarly targeted at one particular user as an editing restriction, rather than addressing the root issue. If the editors here feel that these notices ought to be mandatory (and I tend to agree that they probably should), then they should be willing to do the leg work of getting consensus to change the wording of the relevant policy/process pages, not try to strong-arm the approach by making an example of one user and trying to dictate which tools they use. SwisterTwister (in fact, no editor) should be required to conduct themselves at a stricter standard of care than our policies explicitly require of any other editor--those policies exist precisely to inform our editorial corps on how to approach a particular issue and if they do not mandate a particular behaviour, it is unreasonable to require it of any given editor, no matter how reasonable it may seem to a particular group of editors. Wikipedia already has a solution for dealing with issues like this--it's called WP:PROPOSAL. If editors think that informing the author of an article of a proposed deletion should be elevated from recommended best practice recommendation to strict requirement, they should go to the PROD, CSD, and XFD talk pages to make that proposal within the community consensus process. Alternatively, they could make a joint proposal, (meant to apply to all three processes) at WP:VPP and promote it at WP:CD. The alternative approach being considered here is nonsensical (in that it solves the "problem" with regard to exactly one editor), flagrantly disregards the community consensus process (in that it requires a standard of conduct not vetted through WP:Proposal and in conflict with the existing wording of the instructions on those process pages, which were formed through community consensus, albeit for just one editor) and, if I am to be quite frank, just plain lazy (editors want to stick a band-aid on this issue with a quick !vote to restrict the editing of just one editor--while others will be free to ignore the same best-practice advice--rather than using the usual full proposal process to address the actual substantive matter, the wording of the instructions as they exist, which would require more leg work but would lead to a more stable and equally-applied approach).

In short, it is my opinion it is "best practice" to make sure the rules apply equally to all members of our community and that flaws in instruction are corrected at the source, not by micromanagement of one editor's conduct when he is actually technically in compliance with our community's instructions as they currently read... Snow ^{let's rap} 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see how you might have missed it in all this discussion, but there is in fact a proposal under discussion at WP:CSD to codify this for all users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great; I'll have to make the time to comment in support of it, because it seems like a reasonable and pragmatic standard. But I still think it is a backwards approach to ban just one editor from this behaviour while leaving the rest of the community free to indulge in whichever interpretation they prefer in any individual instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - I don't particularly have an opinion about whether everyone should be required to notify -- if that's the community's choice, so be it, change the instructions and let's get on with life -- but I am strongly opposed to forcing a single specific user to do so while the existing policy makes it non-mandatory to do so. I'm especially opposed to forcing that editor to use a tool they don't ordinarily use. This really appears to be like unwarranted bullying on the part of the community for no great gain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support notifications. Whether by Twinkle -- to remove his excuse about how notifications are so much trouble -- or manually using Twinkle is against his religion. And please, no more garbage about how the "Rules don't require it!": doing the right thing shouldn't require absolute rules to force. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having seen SwisterTwister in AfD debates, I would estimate that, at least 85% of the time he identifies an article as advertising, he's right. Which means that he should not be enforced by the community to perform what he usually correctly sees as wasted steps. That said, he also has a very high threshold for any article he sees as commercial speech. Granted, we seem to be seeing more and more, especially from overseas locations. I would advocate, however, that he voluntarily notify the article creator when there is any doubt that the article is created by a non-involved editor. There are some number of these that are good-faith creations by new users that have simply copied from a web site or press release, not knowing our standards on RS. We need to keep this in mind and not assume any "obviously poor" article is an attempt to inflict advertising on the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's nice. And since those cases are so obviously cut-and-dried, then notification shouldn't make the slightest difference.
• No one died and left Swister Twister in sole charge of what is or isn't suitable: THAT'S WHAT THE AFD DISCUSSION IS FOR. It's not something that should call for some sort of battlefield tactic to suppress input. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the requirement that SwisterTwister notify users when nominating articles for deletion, support the use of descriptive edit summaries, oppose the requirement to use specific tools to achieve those requirements. Nick (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose- either make this policy for everyone, or drop the issue. Reyk _YO! 11:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm uncomfortable forcing an editor to use a specific tool in order to correct what the community is describing as a behavioral issue. If the intent is to get ST "to notify users when their pages have been deleted", then that should have been the proposal. Then it would be left up to ST to how he chooses to correct the behavior - either by doing it manually or using a tool. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - although I would personally rather all editors get such notifications I understand SwisterTwisters frustration with some editors. I believe in always applying Assume good faith in the hope that some will change behaviour, and Twinkle makes it quick and easy: however a policy that all users should be notified should be general and I can't support this special action against one editor. Either the rule should be for all or none. Also regarding the initial statement "In order to ease the extra work put in by admins" I would suggest the work required was much less than the work that is now required at AfC: since this incident was raised I've noticed the backlog at AfC is increasing daily and I've had two recent talk page queries about how long it takes for reviews. Maybe some of the supporters will jump onto AfC and help fill the void (I admit I have also had to step back from editing (inc AfC) so am partially to blame for the increase as well). I think if we had more of the experienced editors helping at AfC than maybe this issue would have been muted. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think raising AfC here may be confusing that and New Page Patrol, unless SwisterTwister has been frequently responding to AfC submissions with deletion nominations? But note that I and others who used to help out once in a while at NPP can no longer do so because it's been limited to use of the page curation software and access to that is now a user right that must be requested; the bureaucracy is limiting the ability of experienced editors in general to help out. I reiterate, however, that deletion nominators are already expected to notify at least the page creator; the templates come with copiable notification templates to facilitate that; and it is not an onerous requirement, even if it were not basic courtesy and common sense, to use someone else's words above, and even if not done through Twinkle. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the mandatory use of a specific gadget. We may, and should, discuss the level of collaboration shown in (the lack of proper) edit summaries; or if there should be more notifications and talk, and if making lots of nominations in a row is somewhat disruptive, and so on; but forcing a specific gadget on a user is too much. Nabla (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support that he must use Twinkle or equivalent means of notification (such as manual). He would find that Twinkle automates the routine steps in a nomination and saves enormous amounts of time for the nominator, making him more efficient and productive at the small cost of giving notices to people he thinks are not deserving of them. He has not yet provided a good reason for not doing so, except that he seems to Assume Bad Faith on the part of article creators. What he is doing is creating extra work for administrators (who feel they have to treat his nominations differently, or even perform the notifications themselves) as well as driving away potentially productive editors, many of whom probably bad-mouth Wikipedia for the rest of their lives. IMO his actions and attitude are harming Wikipedia, and the only alternative to this kind of requirement is that he agree not to nominate articles for deletion any more. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I respectfully disagree that new editors are entitled to be notified that their articles have been tagged, and I especially disagree with Primefac's suggestion that they must be given an opportunity to respond. By design, the criteria for speedy deletion only apply to deletions that are beyond debate; allowing new editors to "defend" their creations creates false hope and wastes everyone's time. I share Tazerdadog's concerns that this proposal is overly broad (requiring a specific tool; requiring notifications for bad-faith creations) and Snow's concerns that singling out SwisterTwister for restriction is an attempt to create new policy without going through the proper process.

  That said, I support requiring SwisterTwister always to use edit summaries that plainly indicate the possibility of deletion when applying CSD, PROD, or XfD tags. Rebbing 12:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't see the basis for your objection. If nominators are infallible, then why is there information in the notification templates about appealing the speedy deletion nomination? Surely it's conceivable that even SwisterTwister is occasionally mistaken; or that a new editor (especially) didn't realize some aspect of the requirements for a new article? Also, SwisterTwister nominates a lot of articles for AfD, not just for speedy deletion. By definition, those require a discussion. I suppose you may be assuming the article creator looks at their watchlist; not everyone does, especially new editors who are unlikely to be aware of it. In the final analysis, it's true, no one is entitled to anything. But a volunteer who writes us an article is, I think, entitled to the basic courtesy of being informed that it's been nominated for deletion, under our civility pillar. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think an editing restriction of "required to notify unless [insert exceptions here]" would be better, but this works. I think that if ST CFD's something and notifies the user without using Twinkle, and that is brought here as evidence to request a block, that the editor bringing it should be immediately boomerang blocked for wikilawyering, assuming bad faith and harassment (because at that point, such would be the only reasonable explanation for why they did so).

Note: There needs to be exceptions. For example, requiring ST to notify all accounts in an SPI is arduous and counter-productive. The same goes for drafts which have been submitted and rejected numerous times and a few other cases. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this shouldn't be necessary, but here we are. The Twinkle aspect is non-binding in my opinion. The important thing is that page creators are notified when their pages are tagged for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly per above opposes. This should either apply to everybody or nobody. VegaDark (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This should either apply to everybody or nobody. I would notify, as would most editors, but if it needs to be made mandatory, make it so. No evidence is even really offered that the effect of ST not doing so is/has been disruptive. Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BITE. It really does not need evidence, although common sense would dictate that there will be some. You're another one who seems to be using BURO, given that you acknowledge that you would notify if it were you in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose bureaucracy creep is problematic and most "new users" you'll find aren't interested in editing more than whatever they've started on. Time vets helpful editors: a wannabe contributor learns the lessons like we all did but keeping improper articles off of Wiki is a thankless job and to mandate those who take their time to do it only do it in some preferred way only leads to less people willing to NPP and more dreck in the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as some kind of mob lynching. ST has not violated any policy. They are not required to inform page authors and have the right not to, as long as the policy remains as it is. I for one rarely notify page creators when I tag their articles – there is simply no point: If the subject is non-notable then no amount of cleanup will change this; If the page is a complete copyvio it may as well be deleted since anything would require a complete rewrite; If the article is nonsense or a hoax then notifying the user just gives them the opportunity to remove the tag. Laurdecl ^talk 06:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone on long enough. The community has wasted countless hours of time dealing with ST's deletionism. Since the solution is quite simple and actually makes his entire deletion-related work easier, I see absolutely no logical reason not to support this. The argument that "it is not required" and "we have no right to" disappears when this user has been brought to this forum a ridiculous number of times for deletion-related issues. The next step will need to be ArbCom and a possible exclusion from any deletion-related activities. This is simpler. Also note that, via ANI, the community recently made a similar and related requirement of another user (whose name escapes me) whose nearly entire edit history was deletion nominations. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose On the support side we have people saying he should do all the work that he says he would prefer and on the oppose side we have it's not policy so he shouldn't be expected to do the work he doesn't want to do. I agree with modification of policy and I believe Vandalism is a good place to look on how to deal with these sorts of situations. "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." It is authoritative and clear in policy on a subjective matter whereas looking at CSD it states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." is sounds more of a mere suggestion with the words "generally considered" and "courteous" if the proposal can not be clear and concise it seems reasonable that SwisterTwister wouldn't go extra effort 600 times to be "courteous". Because I have no stance on how a user should be informed I believe which tool they decide to notify the user is up to them. I believe modification of the proposal could help create a case in a future incident discussion but as it is written currently I don't believe there is clear enough wording in the CSD to act. I believe there is a clear issue that an actual user could risk being confused by the deletion as Niteshift36 mentioned he has had confused people in IRC before. But until we make it clear that attempts notification should be made then a case of "Well the user should have been notified but you clearly made no attempts at contact" would be a good starting point. MINIMAN10000 (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Voluntary commitment proposal / alt proposal: temporary Twinkle use but no forced notification

The proposal above seems to be gathering steam for ST to be forced to notify (even if maybe not by Twinkle).

I think ST should not be forced to notify since that is not policy and there are cases where it is justifiable not to do so. However, ST complained that notifying would disrupt their workflow, which is not as much as an objection against notifications than a convenience problem. Despite what was mentioned before, I do believe that is a "I don't want to change my habits" situation.

SwisterTwister, are you willing to give Twinkle a try? There is an option to not notify the user. You could use "notification" by default, and turn it off in the cases where you think it unwarranted. By "give it a try", I mean performing a few nominations with it (say, 10) to demonstrate that you really tried it - even if afterwards you revert to the previous workflow, the learning time will be sunk cost and you would have no inertia incentive not to use TW.

If ST does not agree, I still think that a coercitive proposal along the lines of SwisterTwister must use Twinkle to perform his next 10 PROD/CSD/XFD actions is better than the current proposal (the limit could be in days/weeks, but there must be no notification obligation). It is temporary, which makes it more educative than punitive, and I have reasonable hopes that ST will, indeed, find the use of Twinkle agreeable even if forced at it at first. I agree that forcing a tool to use has no precedent, but in this precise case I can see a good chance that it would end in a win-win situation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I will note that my latest notifications have been manual ones. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• You mean like when you tagged Global Traveler for deletion? Oh wait, you didn't. And you also left one of your uselessly obscure edit summaries ("N") when you placed the AFD notice. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• That is precisely the problem I see, SwisterTwister: if you are forced to make manual notifications, it will consume a lot of time, and you might be tempted to skip them. If on the other hand, you are forced to use a tool that allows easy notifications, you will have no laziness incentive to skip them - though you could still skip them, as possible per policy.

What is your answer to the voluntary Twinkle commitment I proposed? I realize that is a bit of a blackmail ("pledge that or something worse will happen"), and it might be already too late to avoid the previous proposal, but lesser of two evils and all that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing for it, but I'll note that it's quite unlikely I would become tired of notifying, as it's parallel to all my other activities here. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Since notification is automatic by default, I'm curious as to how you could become tired of it. Does it take a lot of effort to NOT check a box? --Calton | Talk 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ST is currently not using automated tools for AfD etc., and so is notifying manually. (I do not understand what it's parallel to all my other activities here is supposed to mean though - surely, time spent in manual notifications is not spent elsewhere.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT ST's behavior issues consume a LOT of time on this board. I do not understand why an administrative block has not been placed by now.104.163.150.250 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's because those wanting him blocked, despite being very tenacious and insistent about it, have not made a good case for it. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • An explanation seems called for here. We don't block simply for consuming a lot of time (at the noticeboards or otherwise), nor do I, for one, want to see SwisterTwister blocked. But I regard him as a problem editor. No evidence has been put forth that he is now notifying editors when he nominates articles they created for either speedy deletion or deletion through AfD. Notifying them is strongly recommended at the pages on both deletion processes. Not doing it is a violation of community norms and is at a minimum high-handed, and the argument that he doesn't have time is invalid: not only do most of us perform the notifications (including myself, although I do not use automated processes at all), but not doing so is at a minimum high-handed toward the editors in question; to my mind it is inherently hostile, The partial justification SwisterTwister presents above, that some of those editors have a COI or are simply spammers, is classic ABF. We are required by WP:CIV, one of the 5 pillars, to assume good faith. SwisterTwister is placing absolute faith in his own nose for what should be deleted, and the damage to Wikipedia from driving off even one well-meaning editor in this way is real. Moreover, the article creator is often in the best position to find and add the needed sources once they know they are needed; by not giving them that opportunity, SwisterTwister has conceivably damaged the encyclopedia by causing articles on notable topics to be deleted that could have been saved. The argument that SwisterTwister's deletionist mindset—or his specific focus on COI articles—makes his work valuable to the encyclopedia ignores these serious considerations with his (intentionally or not) callous and selfish cutting of corners in the process. If SwisterTwister will not start notifying article creators as a general rule—as the instructions already state should be done—then the answer is not for others to continue checking his contributions as a problem editor, but for him to be required to use an automated method that puts an end to the problem. And he did not do so after the last AN/I, which focused on this precise problematic aspect of his editing, and is still not saying here that he will do so. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RE: "the last AN/I", would it be useful to this discussion if someone could look up and link to the previous times he has been brought to AN/I over his tagging practices? --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• • • • It's because those wanting him blocked... Who would those be? I see one IP expressing surprise that ST hasn't been blocked and one editor lamenting that it may come to a choice between ST leaving notifications or being blocked. Do you have a non-imaginary case to make? --Calton | Talk 11:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Do a search of SwisterTwister's name on ANI. You'll find at least four or five threads complaining about him for very strange, often mutually contradictory, reasons and for most of these consensus is against blocking or otherwise sanctioning him. If someone is surprised ST hasn't been blocked, they should remember that people only get blocked if there's a good reason presented for it, and that hasn't been done. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
          • This blocking thing seems to be a red herring. Is anyone actually suggesting a block in this thread, aside from the snippy aside by the anon. Those who have commented about ST's contributions seem generally to be appreciative of what they do, although not necessarily of how they do it. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
            • That's exactly the point. Nobody's asked for ST to be blocked in this thread, or made anything resembling a good case for it in any previous thread. Thus it's actually not surprising that ST has not bee blocked. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Exempt certain CSD criteria from the above proposal?

The above proposal looks quite certain to be adopted, however there are some concerns about notifications for certain criteria being redundant or counterproductive. Assuming the above restriction is adopted, should any criteria be exempted, and if so, which ones?

Exempt G3, G5, G7, G10, and X1 Tazerdadog (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I want SwisterTwister to form a new habit of notifying, as the instructions say should be done (I believe the only reasons the instructions don't say you must notify are that they are concerned with all major contributors to the article, and it is often a judgement call who to include in that). And I don't want to encourage the excuse of their thinking their judgement as to whether an article is purely promotional or a hoax is infallible; that violates WP:AGF, apart from the fact that nobody's always right, about every subject area. So better to err on the side of always notifying. Hence I support the Twinkle requirement, because that makes it automatic and painless for him. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Right now the raw !vote stands at 21 support/ 13 oppose, or 61% support. That looks to me like a proposal that could go either way, not one that "looks quite certain to be adopted". In my view, whether the suggested sanction is imposed on ST or not rather depends on the quality of the arguments presented, and since the opposes (of which I am one) are in large part based on the actual existing language of the CSD policy, and the supports have largely failed to establish that sufficient harm is being done to justify such a punitive sanction (yes, it's punitive, since it's not preventing any violation of policy), it's actually fairly likely that it will not be imposed, but will either be closed with no action taken or allowed to scroll off the board. That said, ST should take in the "sense of the community" that many people are unhappy with his habit of non-notification, and consider changing his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. It is difficult to prove that deviating from the practise followed by most people has actually caused problems precisely because it is difficult to follow what is going on, both with notifications and the peculiar way they respond to queries about articles made on their talk page. Nonetheless, it is common sensical that non-notification is likely to piss some people off and/or discourage them from future participation, and that there is at least a self-admitted assumption of faith/unilateral conclusion being made across a wide range of articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Certainly I know that the comments on the proposal are not votes - that is why I wrote "!vote" above. Nevertheless, you are as aware as I am that looking at the numbers can be helpful in determining where a discussion is heading. As for ST, I repeat, forcing them to notify, when the policy does not require notification, is inherently a punitive measure. If you want to make notification a policy requirement, then change the policy, that's the very simple answer to all of this. If, as various people have said, ST is practically the only editor in the Wiki-verse not to notify, then changing the policy should be a piece of cake, and we've avoided punishing someone for violating a policy that does not, in fact, exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • How is it a punishment? It will make his life easier (if he opts for Twinkle, anyway). It will also make life easier for everyone else. ST's only objections thus far appear to be fairly specious and related to a subset of all that he does in this area. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The point is, even those who are opposing (your 39%, give or take) are saying that he really should be doing it. They're just arguing that he cannot be compelled to notify. But he can be per RESTRICT. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
        • To force someone to do something they're not inclined to do, and are not required to do by policy, and to use a tool to do it they do not normally use, and don't seem to want to use, in order to prevent nothing but the possibility of something happening, is punishing the user for not doing things the way you want them to be done, without your taking the step of requiring that it be done by changing the policy. That's punitive by any definition. Change the policy, then if ST doesn't follow it, he can be sanctioned, but not before. You are, in effect, putting the cart before the horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• I would agree with that amendment, if the proposed restriction was to pass. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see a consensus for the proposal but those who love bureaucracy would like it. The creator of an article has no more WP:OWNership of the article than any other editor. There is a centralized discussion on whether such notices should be mandatory and there, not here, should be where the matter is decided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• fwiw, I've been arguing that notification should be required in normal circumstances ever since I cam here. There has in the past been some difficulty in defining the circumstances in which it should not be required. Personally, I think even vandalism should be notified, because it serves as information for those who may encounter the editor later. The key problem, as usual around here , is harassment. And if a built in routine does something absurd like notifying myself, I just delete the notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Disregard of userspace prerogatives and rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

• Checkingfax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevjonesin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Kevjonesin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Checkingfax has been repeatedly ignoring requests to refrain from refactoring and otherwise editing my user talkpage (ongoing since 19 January 2017) and User:Dicklyon has recently joined in on his behalf. I would like both users to cease all interaction with my personal namespace.

Rudeness/personal attacks in edit summaries

• "K, you're being an asshole"

• "Please chill and then spontaneously combust."

Interaction links/diffs

• User:Checkingfax removal of edit warring warning I left to his talk page:

Latest revision as of 00:01, 2 February 2017 Checkingfax

(Reverted 1 edit by Kevjonesin (talk): Please chill and then spontaneously combust. thank you. (TW)-WP:5P)[74]

• my inquiry and its response on User:Dicklyon's talkpage:[75]

• the summary back to which I was referred:

Latest revision as of 00:04, 2 February 2017 Dicklyon

m (Reverted 1 edit by Kevjonesin (talk): K, you're being an asshole; cut it out. (TW))[76]

• my reversion of User:Checkingfax preceding User:Dicklyon's revert:

Revision as of 23:28, 1 February 2017 Kevjonesin

(Undid revision 763251605 by Checkingfax (talk -- In my own namespace I'll insert links and notation as I see fit , TYVM))[77]

• User:Checkingfax:

Revision as of 23:17, 1 February 2017 Checkingfax

(Undid revision 763242294 by Kevjonesin (talk) - I do not want my signature on your talk page)[78]

• me:

Revision as of 22:00, 1 February 2017 (edit) (undo)

Kevjonesin (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision -- Checkingfax you didn't, I did by via an appropriate template as per my prerogative in personal namespace)[79]

• User:Checkingfax:

Revision as of 21:14, 1 February 2017 Checkingfax

(Undid revision 763215093 by Kevjonesin (talk) I do not wish to sign the edit)[80]

• me:

Revision as of 18:23, 1 February 2017 Kevjonesin

(Undid revision -- A.) Checkingfax having placed the link unsigned is in the page edit history, B.) Checkingfax has been previously asked/instructed to make no more edits in this namespace w/o explicit advance permission)[81]

• User:Checkingfax:

Revision as of 20:24, 29 January 2017 Checkingfax

m (→‎Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: page history will attribute any comments. i have added nothing to this page. refactored per WP:TPG and WP:AGF. i do not wish my username to appear on this page.)[82]

• me:

Revision as of 06:03, 20 January 2017 Kevjonesin

(Undid revision 760975309 by Checkingfax (talk) -- further refactoring of my talkpage by others without my permission may result in requests for administrative intervention)[83]

• User:Checkingfax:

Revision as of 22:47, 19 January 2017 Checkingfax

(→‎Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: I.)[84]

• me:

Revision as of 20:15, 19 January 2017 Kevjonesin

(→‎Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: unauthorized refactor transformed to attributed comment)[85]

• me again/preceding:

Revision as of 20:07, 19 January 2017 Kevjonesin

(Undid revision 760901737 by Checkingfax (talk) -- Please don't presume to refactor/replace another's entry on my talkpage; Bring things to my attention with your own comment instead.)[86]

• User:Checkingfax's original 3rd party 'drive by' edit on behalf of banned user Wikicology:

Revision as of 14:01, 19 January 2017 Checkingfax

(→‎Reversion of File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png: rm copy vio per WP:TPG and WP:AGF)[87]

~

• interaction after-the-fact with User:Wikicology on Commons:[88]

~

• notice on Checkingfax talkpage to refrain from further interaction on my page:[89]

• User:Dicklyons talkpage inquiry/response:[90]

• User:Dicklyons talkpage stay away notice:[91]

• User:Dicklyons block log:[92]

• my comment on another User:Dicklyon WP:ANI thread:[93]

I'm feeling harassed and insulted. Some relief would be greatly appreciated.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Question for Checkingfax - did you put the text Link to discussion on Kevjonesin's page or not? It kind of looks like you did: [94], unless you were simply restoring a comment from an earlier version of the page. But anyway, if you did add it, then you and Dicklyon should not have edited away an {{unsigned}} template added to attribute that comment to you, I would have thought.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Amakuru. I refactored the comment to remove the author's text and to replace it with a generic pointer to the author's original comment. My refactoring effort was completely reverted, and I did not restore it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Checkingfax: You repeatedly say in edit summaries that you do not wish to sign the edit and that you do not want your username to show up on that user's talk page. I do not really see how you have a choice in the matter: You made the edit, we sign our edits to talk pages and we have {{unsigned}} for the purpose of attributing edits where, for whatever reason, one was unsigned. If you do not want your username on their talk page then do not edit their talk page... simple. My advice is leave it alone and walk away since you are likely looking at a WP:3RR block if they take it to WP:ANEW. Jbh^Talk 15:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Miscounted. Struck Last edited: 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The unsigned template adds a line saying that he made a comment; he did not; as a reader there, he made a link work, and did not participate in the conversation. Whether or not you believe it is entirely appropriate for him to remove that auto signature that claims he commented, you should be able to see that K's warring to put it back serves no purpose and is just super obnoxious. I thought maybe an outside opinion about that would sink in, so I expressed my feelings (admittedly, more rudely that is generally acceptable on WP). Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax was responsible for that link being where it was, and for its text. Therefore they should have signed it, and it was entirely proper for an unsigned link to be added in. You can't edit talk pages and then maintain that you had no contribution in them. In fact, it would have been even better to have noted with the link that a copyvio had taken place, since otherwise it's changing other users' comments without explaining why.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Amakuru. I did not add any content to the discussion. At the comment authors request, and in good faith I refactored a pointer to the existing content, per talk page guidelines. Refactoring does not require a signature, and I chose not to leave one. Regardless, the current text was solely written by Kevjonesin, and not by me, so I do not need to be openly attributed for it, nor do I wish to be. It is all covered by the page history. Kevjonesin added the existing text in a discrete edit—not in a revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Statement by Checkingfax

By request, I refactored a copyright violation in this edit.

Kevjonesin reverted my refactoring with this edit.

From that point forward, I was out of the content refactoring loop.

The remaining edit content is Kevjonesin's. It is no longer my content.

As an aside, I reverted my signature twice in 24-hours. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The content they are adding {{unsigned}} to is precisely the content that you added/refactored. Compare [your edit to with the text where the signature is being added. Am I missing something really obvious here (I do not doubt it is possible I am.)? The both seem to be :[[:c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it.3F|Link to discussion]]. Is that the text you added? Jbh^Talk 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Jbhunley. My edit was reverted. What you see was re-added by Kevjonesin. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see what you are saying, however what they did was restore the page to the state you had created - both the text that was removed and the text that was added. Since you should have signed your original edit (you should have even left a note explaining what you did) I do not see how who reverted to your text matters. Jbh^Talk 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jbhunley. I am not involved in the refactoring. I refactored a copyright violation by request. Kevjonesin completely removed my refactoring. Kevjonesin owns any refactoring from that point forward. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax I do see what you are saying however here is where I, and I think the others are coming from; You refactored some text, per WP:TPO you should have left a note about about what you did, which should have been signed. Someone then reverted your edit and then it was replaced again. Since you failed to sign it the first time there is no way to know if it was independently replaced or simply reverted back to what you wrote. Since the edit is the same as your though the assumption is that they replaced your edit and, had you properly left a note and signed it, that would have been replaced as well. Therefore, it is still your edit and needs to be properly attributed to you. Jbh^Talk 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jbhunley. No. My refactoring was totally removed in the subsequent revert. Kevjonesin added it back in their later refactoring. It is their baby from then on. They are welcome to sign it with their name, as it is their refactoring. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's clearly not how it works. If you write some material in an article, I revert what you wrote, and I then go on to revert my revert, does it suddenly magically become my text for attribution purposes, because I was the one who most recently inserted it into the article? No. And the same applies here. Clearly that link was attributable to you, since you put it on the talk page, and per WP:TPO you should not only have signed it, but put an explanatory note against it as to why the original material was removed. I appreciate that you acted in good faith in your actions, but as far as I can tell Kevjonesin was correct to put the unsigned template, and you shouldn't have removed it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Amakuru. Kevjonesin did not insert the comment via a revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You keep saying that but what do you think it means? You seem to be saying that because they replaced your text via an edit rather than hitting the undo/revert button that it is not a revert and is now their edit. That makes no sense at all - replacing previous material is a 'revert' regardless of how it is done. See WP:REVERT which clearly states "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version."

Why is it so important to you that your redaction (You chose to make the edit after all.) not be documented on that user's page? Again, per WP:TPO, If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]"^{(emp. added). So there is no question that when you make a redaction that it should be signed.}

This whole conflict is such a small thing but I see so many violations of guidelines by you, a) Improperly calling the material you removed a copyright violation and on that basis proxying for a banned editor b) Not leaving a signed note about the redaction as required by TPO c) Trying to claim that someone who returned your text after your edit was removed was not reverting the prior edit. All of this is basic stuff. I know you are a knowledgeable and experienced editor and this seems, to me, to be uncharacteristic for you. Jbh ^Talk 21:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax: I'm curious how the text you removed here was a copyright violation and why the requester couldn't remove it himself. Rebbing 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rebbing. Because the author was not attributed. The requester asked me to remove it on their behalf. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• The comments claiming Checkingfax made a comment and so must have a signature are plainly incorrect. It would be possible to argue that Checkingfax's fixing of a bad link to one that works was inappropriate in some way that escapes me, but fixing such a mistake is not a "comment" that must be signed. The bureaucratic suggestion that fixing a link must be accompanied with a signed note explaining what has been done is, well, bureaucracy run wild. At any rate, Checkingfax did not leave such a comment so a signature is not required and would be wrong as it would suggest that Checkingfax left the link, whereas the edit was just fixing an error. Kevjonesin should attack whatever the perceived problem is (presumably a conflict with Checkingfax at some other page), and should not make a huge incident out of someone fixing a link. Bringing it to ANI shows misjudgment—just drop the trivia and accept that no one owns a page at Wikipedia (not even a user talk page), and next time someone fixes a link consider thanking them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, please support your previous comment with diff links as I really don't know what 'link fixing' by Checkingfax you're referring to. My understanding is that on behalf of a banned user he removed a quote from my user talkpage, left a link to a Commons dialog which requires exploration of Commons page history to parse relevance, and topped it off with an unspecific 'acronym salad' edit summary rather than offer direct communication in straightforward language, eg. "Banned user Wikicology has requested on Commons that he not be quoted here", or some such. I might have responded differently had I been approached differently. But I wasn't. Instead Checkingfax came out-of-the-blue, altered another's entry on my user talkpage, and left a vague trail-of-breadcrumbs rather than an explanation. Should a request made offsite by a banned user take precedent over an en.Wikipedia editor in good standing's wishes regarding their own user talkpage? --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Rebbing, regarding ...

Checkingfax: I'm curious how the text you removed here was a copyright violation and why the requester couldn't remove it himself. Rebbing 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rebbing. Because the author was not attributed. The requester asked me to remove it on their behalf. Cheers! Checkingfax Talk 21:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

... The quoted exchange at User_talk:Kevjonesin which Checkingfax tried to remove came from a public discussion on Wikimedia Commons (as such I presume its content would be considered to be in the public domain). One of the Commons users who had contributed to the quoted exchange, commons:User:Wikicology, was unable to personally attempt to alter User_talk:Kevjonesin directly because they have been banned indefinitely from editing en.Wikipedia in any manner; this however did not stop them from enlisting proxies to do so on their behalf. Apparently Checkingfax chose to be such a proxy. Rebbing, as to Checkingfax's responding to your inquiry with, "Because the author was not attributed.", I presume he's experimenting with 'alternate facts' as the diff you linked clearly shows the parties involved as being both named and wikilinked. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that comments made on Commons, like comments made here, aren't public domain but are irrevocably licensed under the GFDL and the Creative Commons "share-alike" license, either of wich permits reuse and modification with attribution. Under these circumstances, I believe Wikicology had no right to demand removal of his comments from your talk page, and, in my view, you would have been well within your rights to revert repeatedly and rely on Three-Revert Rule Exception No. 2 (and possibly No. 3).

More importantly, Wikicology was banned for reasons including sockpuppetry; using another user to carry out this edit was highly inappropriate. I am surprised and disappointed with Checkingfax's lack of candor in this regard. Not only did Checkingfax not disclose that he was editing on a banned user's behalf—something he surely knew—but, when asked about it here ("I'm curious . . . why the requester couldn't remove it himself."), he evaded the question. Rebbing 13:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rebbing. Kevjonesin did revert my refactoring and I did not restore the revert. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Dicklyon: Stop messing about on Kevjonesin talk page. I cannot see any copyright violation as the original post was adequately attributed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What a constructive suggestion, considering we've stopped already. And sorry you didn't read enough to understand the relationship to the copyright issue that used to be there. But don't you think that K ought to also be admonished not to engage in such behavior, as I tried to suggest in my one edit summary? Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, please explain how this does not have adequate attribution. And both the text and point of your edit summary and edit were inappropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. I refactored some text.

The refactored text is still directly accessible via link.

Kevjonesin *reverted* my refactoring.

Their page was then back to status quo.

Kevjonesin *manually* refactored their page back to the way I had it, but added my signature.

Kevjonesin should have signed the new edit with their signature, *if* they felt that their refactoring required a signature.

Kevjonesin decided *not* to maintain the status quo.

My signature should not be attached to Kevjonesin's content. The 2nd refactoring was unsigned by Kevjonesin, not by me. It was their manual edit (not a revert).

As an aside, most things Wiki are not in the Public Domain, unless specifically licensed as such.

Refactoring or redacting is not typically attributed by signature.

One solution is status quo ante bellum. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax, this series of edits took your refactoring and attributed it to you. There's nothing wrong with that - especially as editors have large leeway on how they manage their own talk pages. And, again, your initial edit incorrectly stated there was a copyright issue involved. There wasn't and isn't - do you agree with that now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. Kevjonesin *reverted* my refactoring. My refactoring no longer exists. Kevjonesin divorced me from my refactoring. Any subsequent refactoring is attributable to Kevjonesin, not to me. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You're avoiding my copyright question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. I am trying to keep things on topic and without side drama. My refactoring was reverted. That horse is dead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax, you are avoiding a direct question from an admin. You claimed three times [95], [96], [97] that the post Jmabel made was a copyvio, and then claimed the authorship was not attributed [98] although it clearly was. NeilN asked you, "And, again, your initial edit incorrectly stated there was a copyright issue involved. There wasn't and isn't - do you agree with that now?" Please answer the question so we can move on from that part of the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: My main concern is that if you still think you're right, and you act the same way in the future in a similar situation, this "side drama" may once again make a reappearance here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. You are putting words into my mouth and baiting me with a now moot point. My refactoring was reverted. Nullified. Poof. Gone. Bit the weenie. The fine points of copyright, a very complicated topic, are for other venues, and best left to copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers. I do not wish to go there at this juncture nor do I wish to use a crystal ball. Let's remain focused on the original scope of this AN/I, and the timeline of events. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: All right, I take it from your refusal to answer a straightforward question and the fact that you consider this matter best left to "copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers" that you won't do anything like this again unless you fully understand what is to you a very complicated topic. Kevjonesin, I don't think there's any appetite on the part of the community to take things further at this time. You identified inappropriate behavior and edit summaries on your talk page. That has now stopped. If it starts again (really, anywhere) then I'm pretty sure some kind of editing sanctions will be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. You asked for a reply from Dicklyon, not from me.

I did not leave any inappropriate edit summaries on Kevjonesin's Talk page, and the one on *my* Talk page was after this AN/I had been filed and they had sullied *my* Talk page with a long monologue and diatribe. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Did someone ask me a question that I missed? This discussion is too complicated to find it. Probably it doesn't matter, or possibly I don't want to answer, if it was about something I know nothing about like the copyright thing. But ping me if getting an answer from me would be in any way useful. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You are quite obviously wrong when you say I didn't ask for a reply from you. [99], [100] [101] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, what are you actually after here? Understanding the copyright issue, or understanding whether Checkingfax acted in good faith? Either way, I don't see what the point of pressing for an answer here is. You seem to be into prolonging the drama that K provoked by not letting Checkingfax let the revert of his edit stand without his further involvement. This kind of trivia makes me sick. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, repeating what I wrote above, my main concern is that if Checkingfax still thinks they removed a copyright violation, and they act the same way in the future in a similar scenario, they may once again make an appearance here. If this kind of "trivia" makes you sick, the solution is simple - don't provoke editors by making inappropriate edits with inappropriate edit summaries on their talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. My apologies. When you wrote: "Dicklyon, please explain how ..." ... I assumed that the question was directed at ... Dicklyon. As far as copyrights go, we laymen are the gatekeepers. If someone balks, then we can escalate to Wikilawyers – or to real ones. In this case, my single refactoring was reverted and I chose to stand down on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN: Speaking of: In this thread, one of Checkingfax's comments was misplaced (diff), apparently by the system to resolve an edit conflict; Kevjonesin fixed it, believing it to have been deliberate (diff); yet Checkingfax, after affirming that it had been accidental (diff), reverted to that inappropriate ordering (diff). Checkingfax knows how threading works—he's even shown an admirable tendency for correcting threading mistakes (diff)—and, in this case, was obviously aware that Kevjonesin was irked about this particular misplacement. I struggle to find an innocent explanation for this behavior. Rebbing 00:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rebbing. My edit session started before Kevjonesin's, so the system threading was proper and not in need of refactoring. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:Dicklyon has directed attention to the summary where he's called me an 'asshole'. And I don't think anyone has a yet commented on Checkingfax's edit summary suggestion that I should 'spontaneously combust'. ... May I infer from the overall lack of concern and lack of apology regarding such that I'm now free to start expressing a few choice words of my own? Because at this point dropping some <insert-adjective-expletive-of-choice> blunt phrases might feel pretty cathartic. Or perhaps someone with tools and authority might be so kind as to simply make them go away? And perhaps follow with some actions to encourage them to stay away in the future? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, please don't play a "tit for tat" game. I believe both editors have stopped editing your talk page and have no intention of starting up again. If they do, they've been warned, so the next step will probably be some form of admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, K could have and should have stopped this silly back-and-forth well before it got to where I felt like telling him to "cut it out". He seems to like the drama, hence extending the trivia to this AN/I discussion. Unbelievable waste of many editors' attention. And people wonder why I described him as acting like something unmentionable? Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Break to facilitate thread navigation

[things seemed to have been getting chaotic after Checkingfax's reinstatement of non-sequential timestamp order;[102] hopefully this section break will help with ease of editing and orderliness] (preceding note has been edited for clarity; phrasing was tweaked and a citation was added)[103]

Dicklyon commented above ...

NeilN, what are you actually after here? Understanding the copyright issue, or understanding whether Checkingfax acted in good faith? Either way, I don't see what the point of pressing for an answer here is. You seem to be into prolonging the drama that K provoked by not letting Checkingfax let the revert of his edit stand without his further involvement. This kind of trivia makes me sick. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously NeilN is free to respond as he wishes. I'd like to offer some response as well:

• For me to feel comfortable 'putting this to rest' I'd like to see User:Dicklyon directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he now understands that his actions on User_talk:Kevjonesin were incorrect and uncalled for and then also directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he intends to respect my request to avoid editing in the User:Kevjonesin namespace in the future. Lacking an affirmative direct and unequivocal response, I'd like to see an officially recorded topic ban put in place prohibiting User:Dicklyon from further editing of the User:Kevjonesin namespace to protect me from further insult and intrusion by him there. While to User:Dicklyon it might just be one more block added to a long list of priors placing a record there might be a service to future admins who may care to take history into account when considering how to interpret current behavior.

Please note that User:Dicklyon has shown a willingness to show a sensitivity to alteration of talkpages when it affects him.[104][105] Perhaps he might be convinced in some way to extend such concern to me as well? Also please note that I did try to engage with User:Dicklyon on his talkpage, offering him explicit opportunity to elaborate in a more civil manner,[106] before bringing our interaction up here on WP:ANI (alongside addressing my more extensive interactions with User:Checkingfax; tone, timing, and topic seemed related). Note that Dicklyon feels free to endorse talkpage discussion when it suits his own purpose.[107][108][109]

• As to User:Checkingfax, I'd like to see User:Checkingfax directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he now understands that his actions on User_talk:Kevjonesin were incorrect and uncalled for and then also directly and unequivocally answer as to whether he intends to respect my request to avoid editing in my namespace in the future. Lacking an affirmative direct and unequivocal response, I'd like to see an officially recorded topic ban put in place prohibiting User:Checkingfax from further editing of the User:Kevjonesin namespace to protect me from further disregard and disruption by him there.

Frankly, I'd like a topic ban to be considered for Checkingfax regardless of how he responds as he has repeatedly shown himself to be an unreliable witness for himself. I don't really care whether his behavior comes from malice or cluelessness at this point; I'd largely just like to feel able to rest assured that he'll leave the User:Kevjonesin namespace the hell alone and refrain from edit warring there in the future. Maybe, as a 'cherry-on-top' someone in a position of authority might also try to convey to him that telling people to burn to death in edit summaries as a response to getting called out with an edit warring template is inadvisable behavior as it might well be construed as a personal attack. One can dream, right? ;-)

--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to directly and unequivocally state that in this section K is still acting in the way that I asked him to cut out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note to non-involved closing admin

[Checkingfax refactored nothing as alleged above; Kevjonesin did, as the edit history shows.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Both the preceding commentary and its subsection heading were originally inserted unsigned, out of order, into another's thread entry by Checkingfax.[110] Its attribution, via Template:Unsigned, was provided by Rebbing.[111]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax has again inserted his own content into the entry. I simply reverted this time.[112] If desired, others are free to transcribe the removed text elsewhere.

<sigh> :( --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, by my reckoning that now makes three times he's altered my entries here at WP:ANI, before that he reverted me three times in a row on my user talkpage, and preceding that he knowingly removed content from my talkpage on behalf of a banned user. Please help. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Dicklyon has again altered User_talk:Kevjonesin. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  I feel disappointed that you did not accept my constructive compromise that clarified the attribution; I don't know if Checkingfax would have accepted it either; but I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems a poor way to present a suggestion in light of this. Particularly saddening as I came by the Wiki to compliment you on something I'd noticed earlier. "That's the behavior I was calling out when I took C's side in one step of the edit war. OK, I shouldn't have, but that's how I delivered my impression and advice to K."[113] [emphasis added]. I thought you might be 'coming around', but it now seems 'not-so-much'. You've certainly as yet not availed yourself of any opportunity to offer such sentiment directly to me. Meh, knowing full well I consider such contentious, after having been asked in very clear terms to refrain from editing at User_talk:Kevjonesin, you chose to again unilaterally make alterations rather than first seek consensus either here or on your own talkpage. I feel naive for having thought I'd seen an opportunity to build some mutual trust and rapport. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You "formerly" request? In all seriousness, you are being comically insufferable about all this. Thanks for the suggestion about developing consensus, which I'll propose below. Rebbing 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for pointing out the spelling error; I'll ask Dicklyon whether he minds if I correct it at this late point. And apologies for having taken a 'speaking-truth-to-power' tone earlier. For some reason I'd presumed you were an admin. I don't typically hang out much at WP:ANI. Also I appreciated and largely concur with the summary of concerns regarding Checkingfax you offered earlier in discussion with Dicklyon. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon:, do you mind if I correct spelling and punctuation errors in the notice I left on your page? Alternately, would you be willing to correct them on my behalf?

I'm suggesting ...

"{{pullquote|{{u|Dicklyon}} I, {{u|Kevjonesin}}, formerly request"

... be changed to ...

"{{pullquote|{{u|Dicklyon}}, I, {{u|Kevjonesin}}, formally request"

ie. add a comma and convert "formerly" to "formally". --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed compromise regarding attribution of the refactored link on Kevjonesin's talk page

Kevjonesin suggested developing consensus for altering his talk page. In light of the continuing dispute over this comically trivial matter and out of a desire to appease both parties' expressed concerns, I hereby formally propose that Kevjonesin's talk page be altered to remove the disputed attribution to Checkingfax and substitute in its place: "This link supplied by Checkingfax on 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)." Rebbing 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I will not be taking part in any discussion which starts out by characterizing my concerns as "comically trivial". Rebbing, your POV intro pretty much just blew any chance of me accepting you in a role as mediator. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't call your concerns trivial; I called trivial the dispute between you and Checkingfax over whether or not to attribute the link supplied by his refactoring. (See the title of this subsection for context: grammatically speaking, the "matter" in "comically trivial matter" is the debate over the attribution of the refactored link on your talk page.) Anyway, consensus doesn't require your consenting to it. Rebbing 15:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Furthermore, ...

[...]

Please refrain from making further comments of this nature on my talk page.

[...]

Excuse me? You came to my talk page and made a series of damaging accusations against me, yet it is unfair for me to respond? You make scandalous claims without evidence, and it is a continuation of my campaign against you to defend myself?

[...]

No. If you do not want editors to respond to your barbs, keep them in your quiver.

[...]

I repeat my request that you stay off my talk page until you have something productive, kind, or necessary to say.

[...]

Preceding quote—including original emphasis—was placed by User:Rebbing on her own talkpage.[114][115]

... Rebbing, I find your hypocrisy astounding. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Kevjonesin: it is way past time you drop this. From here on out the only place this thread has to go is poorly for you. People have heard your complaint, several agree that Checkingfax was wrong while some don't. Endlessly repeating things and attacking others is not going to help. There is obviously no consensus to sanction Checkingfax now, if they start up on your talk page again then start a new ANI. But for now please, please drop it. You can only damage your credibility by continuing. Jbh ^Talk 16:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Call for boomerang

OK, I said I was going to shut up, but I find I can't. This is just too much. I request that K be slapped by a trout or worse, for further extending his stupid trivial drama with this unrelated attack on an editor that's just trying to help, and that this thread be closed immediately. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerns and 'coincidences'

I'd like to remind folks that what we're dealing with is a user who chose to edit another's user talkpage on behalf of a banned user said to have engaged in sockpuppetry.[116][117][118] The edit consisted of gutting another's comment and dropping in a link devoid of context.[119] The user whose namespace the talkpage fell within chose to restore the deleted text[120] while also preserving the added link and then used Template:Unsigned to render context and attribution for the links presence.[121] Contrary to user namespace best practices guidelines the user who had showed up at the behest of an off wiki request from a banned user chose to eventually follow with edit war tactics rather than a bold-revert-discuss approach despite such having been suggested in an early edit summary by the user talkpage holder[122] and despite eventually having been asked by the user namespace holder to refrain from making anymore edits at all;[123] a prerogative customarily extended to user namespace holders.[124] Furthermore, not only did the user who'd initially come by to edit at the behest of a banned user continue to revert the user namespace holder after being told they were no longer welcome in said namespace, they were doing so in a section already explicitly marked as 'closed'.[125] Disregard, disrespect, disruption. When an edit warring warning was placed on their user talkpage[126] they responded with an insulting edit summary[127] and then three minutes later another editor shows up out-of-the-blue and happens to help the previous editor avoid explicitly making three reverts in 24 hours by reverting on their behalf and said 'new' editor also happens to drop an insulting edit summary and also happens to have a history of sockpuppetry.[128][129]

Now I don't have access to all the tools necessary to draw any strong conclusions as to the relationships between these accounts—Wikicology, Checkingfax, Dicklyon—but I am willing to point out how things have played out and suggest that there may be some questions to consider and inquires to be made as to what such relationships might be. Is the User:Checkingfax account a 'clean sock' amongst dirty ones on a multi-limbed beast? IDK, but at this point I think it may be worth entertaining the question.

Regardless, I think it's clear that they've shown confrontational disrespect and disregard both towards User:Kevjonesin and towards en.Wikipedia's customary conventions and guidelines regarding usernamespace domains. While no one technically 'owns' their user namespace (except perhaps User:Jimbo Wales) tradition and guidelines generally grant users the prerogative of fairly broad discretionary authority over such[130][131][132] and use of possessive terminology like 'my/your talkpage', 'my/your userpage', and 'my/your sandbox' in normal parlance amongst the community seems to reinforce such.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. It's clear that both Checkingfax and Dicklyon have engaged in baffling and entirely unwarranted violations of WP:TPO and WP:CIVIL. Why either of them was even posting on or aware of Kevjonesin's talk-page is a huge mystery in itself: [133]. But yes, they should both get strict warnings, if not sterner sanctions, and leave Kevjonesin and his talk-page alone. And no, Kevjonesin did absolutely nothing out of order at all. Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, thanks for weighing in.

FWIW, Checkingfax may be showing signs of feeling free to muck with my entries here as well. He just recently saw fit to push an entry of mine down the thread by inserting his own comment out of sequence above it. I've since restored placement.

Regarding the 'tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py' link you posted above, can you also add User:Wikicology to the mix? And/or generate similar for the activity of the three of them on Commons? I'm curious what cross-referencing the three on both wikis might show.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. Given the closeness of the timestamps, I believe Checkingfax's comment may have been placed above yours as the result of an automatically-resolved edit conflict. Rebbing 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Rebbing. You are correct. We were both writing our replies at the same time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikicology was banned from en.wiki nine months ago, but here is the enwiki search with his name added: [134]. Commons: [135]. What I do find curious is that Wikicology specifically asked (and pinged) Jmabel to remove the copied discussion from your userpage [136], but instead, Checkingfax removed it, 1.75 hours after that request was made to Jmabel. I can't really understand why or where Wikicology would have asked Checkingfax to remove the text when he had just asked Jmabel, especially when I can't find any overlap between Checkingfax and Wikicology on either Commons or en.wiki: [137]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But the request was made to a noticeboard on commons. Although Checkingfax doesn't seem particularly active on Commons, it seems easily possible they were simply checking out the noticeboard at the time for some reason and saw the request and agreed with it so actioned it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Nil Einne. I sincerely appreciate your presumption of good faith, as I do Rebbing's. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: While I disagree with Checkingfax's decision to edit another editor's comment on your talk page, his rationale for doing so (there was no colorable copyright violation, and he is plainly mistaken in claiming that the comments he removed were unattributed), the lack of clarity in his modification (no explanatory note), his refusal to be credited with a comment modification he made (which should have had a note), his ensuing incivility towards you, and his lack of forthrightness here, I see no evidence that he has acted in bad faith or with deliberate malice. Based on your evidence and my past observations, I think it's far more likely that he merely wanted to accommodate Wikicology's request as a courtesy and became irritated when things got dicey. It's not model behavior, but he and Dicklyon have stopped, and I think you should let this go. Also, the community has tacitly sanctioned far more abusive, sustained, and deliberate commentary than that reported here. Rebbing 21:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, that Dicklyon and Checkingfax are not presently this very moment harassing my page likely has much more to do with pragmatic response to the fact that we're currently discussing the issue here at WP:ANI than it does with any sort of moral change of heart on their part. I can't think of any instance in this where they've shown any sort of contrition or self awareness of having overstepped the bounds of civility and such. Checkingfax is still arguing for his right to determine the content of my talkpage and Dicklyon is still making backhanded slurs at others. While Dicklyon and Checkingfax may have noted that they are not presently harassing my talkpage, I don't recall either of them stating a willingness to refrain from doing so in the future. I fear that a lack of explicit censure and acknowledgement thereof at this point may going forward be taken as tacit endorsement of their behavior. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s.— I'm inclined to interpret "incivility" (wishing that I burn to death) as "malicious" and to interpret "lack of forthrightness" as an indication of acting "in bad faith". --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Checkingfax has reverted to the bot's out of sequence order. I think this by definition can be considered 'deliberate'.

Yes, I was aware the first instance may have been inadvertent, hence I prefixed with "may be"; given our history it also seemed reasonable to consider that it 'may not' have been inadvertent. The refactoring I just linked restoring an error certainly wasn't inadvertent.

FWIW, I just had some background bot misplace one of my own edits,[138] so I'm inclined to now ascribe the first instance to automated error. In my case, I corrected the misplacement and made note that an 'edit conflict' had occurred.[139]

In addition to Checkingfax once again showing an inclination towards combative refactoring, I think we should consider how to address the technical issue that some background process is incorrectly ordering changes rather than initiating an edit conflict dialog.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Kevjonesin. The MediaWiki backend correctly reconciled our edit conflict in-as my edit session began before yours. It is not a perfect solution, but putting your later comment below mine would imply that I ignored your comment in my reply, when I did not. I had the first session, whereas you had the first save. Take it up at Phabricator. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Previously raised behavioral concerns:

I was just closing out a bunch of browser tabs and stumbled across this opinion offered by Mandruss almost a year ago ...

Checkingfax, I don't think I was one of those reverting your bolding change, but if people were repeatedly reverting you that means that you were a combatant in an edit war, which violates policy as you know. It means you could never be bothered to start a talk page discussion on the question. Reviewing the article's history, I see you doing a lot of that there, and it seems reasonable to presume that's commonplace for you. I'd suggest you review WP:EW and in particular the last sentence of the first paragraph, before you point critical fingers at others for being "hall monitors" on an article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

[quote source]

It seems to me reminiscent of my recent issues with Checkingfax and as such may speak to ongoing attitudes and patterns of behavior.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I find it interesting that at a point where admins seem to have begun approaching Checkingfax in a more overtly critical manner—perhaps more firmly calling out and attempting to pin down bare declarations, evasions, and such—that it is at this point that Checkingfax has choosen to start making some selective invitations[140][141] (rather than of course just directly answering questions which admins have put to him multiple times). --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Jmabel was mentioned here even if not by Checkingfax, so notifying them is not only acceptable but required as the header clearly says. It's actually more important than "directly answering questions which admins have put to him multiple times". KDS4444 is a little more uncertain. They participated in the original discussion but don't seem to have been mentioned here. However I'd be very reluctant to criticise someone for an ANI notification thought. Especially since I see no evidence of any sort of canvassing as "selective invitations" may imply. As far as I can tell, anyone involved in the older discussion was notified if they weren't already here or notified. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I will confess that I have not read most of the above, but having been pinged I looked for where I am mentioned. There seems to be some suggestion that I'm conspiring or some such with Checkingfax; nothing could be farther from the truth. I have no idea who he is, and to the best of my knowledge the abovementioned is the only interaction I've ever had with him. People are welcome to look at User_talk:Jmabel#Regarding_recent_refactoring.2Fdeletion_in_my_user_space where they can see the bulk of my interaction with Kevjonesin. I had no intention of carrying it further, but having been pinged here: I felt he gave me absolutely no assumption of good faith, when I had acted in an entirely reasonable manner. That's really all I have to say. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. I don't think Kevjonesin was questioning or criticizing your actions in any way. Rather, he was questioning the actions of Checkingfax. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Jmabel, I confess that after-the-fact it has occurred to me more than once that I may have let my frustration with Checkingfax bleed over into how stern of a tone I took with you. I imagine that at the time you initially felt you were just carrying through on the request Wikicology placed on Commons; however for me at the time, from my perspective it initially seemed that you were reverting my revert of Checkingfax. That it eventually came out that both of you were acting on behalf of a banned user didn't help put things in a good light either. Regardless, I recall being in the middle of an attempt to take a more cordial tone on your talkpage when I received notice that Checkingfax had again subverted me on 'my' page ... whereupon my attitude again denigrated.

As I reflect upon it now, my attempt to tag both Checkingfax and Wikicology in the discussion rather than just addressing you alone was probably a poor idea in hindsight and not so dissimilar to KD4444's choice to host a Commons conference on my talkpage (similar in form if not in extent). I apologize for bundling you in with more disruptive elements and if going forward you're willing to place my concerns above offsite requests from banned users you're welcome to resume interacting again in the User:Kevjonesin namespace should you ever wish to do so. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne, please note that my emphasis was on Checkingfax's timing rather than the fact that he'd extended notices per se. And that I put it as a point of interest, something to perhaps note and keep an eye on, rather than suggest it represented, as yet, any sort of overt policy violation. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I just remind people again that after Checkingfax made one edit that was reverted, he wanted nothing more to do with the conversation; when someone put his signature back, on something he didn't author in any constructive sense, he wanted it gone. Kevjonesin, acting like a tyrant, repeatedly disallowed him to withdraw. So I told K what I thought about, with advice to "cut it out". Instead, he doubled down on his obnoxious behavior, and here we still are. Again: cut it out. Close this and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone still cares, I think it was this note on Checkingfax's page that caught my attention, and then I noticed that this pot calling the kettle black was continuing the warring; so I pointed out what bad behaviour that was, and asked him to cut it out. I told him what he was being, not really expecting him to hear it, I guess. I haven't seen anything to change my impression. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Accusing me of edit warring for having made reverts in my own namespace seems ridiculous. Policy clearly states otherwise. The first three examples at 'Edit warring#Exemptions' apply ...

The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:

 1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").

 2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.

 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

My choice to retain Checkingfax's link addition after reverting his initial quote removal is covered by exemption "1.". My reversions of Checkinfax (both to restore quote passage and to restore content attribution) and my reversion of Dicklyon all fall under exemption "2.". And exemption "3." applies because Checkingfax's first alteration was made knowingly,explicitly, and admittedly as a proxy acting on behalf of banned user Wikicolology. These are the guidelines currently put in place by the en.Wikipedia community. It remains to be seen as to whether current en.Wikipedia admins are willing to enforce them in practice. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that your edit warring transgressed any rules; just that you were being an asshole. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: would you like a block for personal attacks? Because that's what calling other users assholes reads like. If you don't want a block, knock that shit off right now and behave like a grown up. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:, I not sure that Dicklyon regards blocks as much of a deterrent.[142] Also, have you examined the edit summary he's referring to? --Kevjonesin (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have long since cut it out. K has introduced that word explicitly into the conversation on this page in 8 places, so I don't think he's too delicate for me to me to also use it once in discussing what that was about. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

K., you are being totally unreasonable. While I question the propriety of Dicklyon's revert, his characterization of your behavior was both accurate and impersonal. Don't confuse vulgarity with vitriol; his edit summary could have been phrased as: "K, you're being needlessly irritating"—an identical meaning with more "respectable" language—to which you could not possibly have objected. Rebbing 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I object to 'needlessly'. Please consider that Dicklyon, a user with an explicit history of edit warring, has stated that he came to my page in response to having seen the edit warring warning I placed on Checkinfax's talkpage.[143][144] Let that sink in a second ... He was explicitly and self admittedly aware that he was making a contentious edit. Yes? When he reverted my good faith policy compliant content attribution which had been placed within the user namespace assigned to me and topped it off with an insulting edit summary he was self-admittedly explicitly aware that by doing so he was continuing an ongoing edit war, right?

Rebbing, multiple community guidelines state that barring overriding circumstances users are to be afforded special privileges/authority/discretion/'wide latitude'/call-it-what-you-will within the namespace assigned to them. How else to find out if such guidelines actually in practice carry any sort of practical meaning other than to press/plead for their enforcement before those—like yourself—who have been granted even broader special privileges/authority/discretion/powers by the community? If the admin community is not willing to defend guidelines put in place by the community-at-large then there is further community discussion to follow regarding assessment of the-current-state-of-things, seeking some consensus of what is desired going forward, and if need be modifying guidelines to better reflect such. -- Kevjonesin (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I object to 'needlessly', too. I think K really did need to be that irritating to get the attention he craves. See how he keeps at it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. I can't remember the last time I've seen someone work so hard to derail his own complaint. Rebbing 00:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kevjonesin. I'm aware of Dicklyon's motive and his (year-old) rap sheet—something you've pointed out repeatedly in this protracted discussion. It's true that he may be shown less tolerance than others, but a single contentious edit is not really edit warring (even if an edit war was already underway). And I agree that editors are afforded broad discretion in controlling pages in their user space, cf. 3RR Exemption 2, but I don't think that means others are absolutely forbidden from meddling with your talk page. I may be wrong, but I believe your remedy for interference in your user space is the undo button, followed by ANEW if disruption continues.

Dicklyon had a plausible reason for interfering: resolving your conflict with Checkingfax by persuading you to let it go. So I don't see his conduct as being something deserving even a warning. (I explained above why I believe his edit summary was fair.) Checkingfax's edit warring, incivility, and repeated obfuscations are a different matter, and pressing irrelevant issues like this risks derailing this whole thread.

I'm not an administrator—just someone who ended up here following something else and thought she'd share her thoughts. Rebbing 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rebbing, but I think y'all are still being unfair to Checkingfax. After his one small link edit was reverted, he wanted nothing more to do with K or his talk page. But then K put in C's signature with summary "unauthorized refactor transformed to attributed comment)". After that, Checkingfax felt he has a right to not have his signature there where he didn't put it, associated with trivial content he didn't create. It started a silly fight, I agree, but is K's "namespace" more sacrosanct than C's signature? Probably not. K just refused to let C off the hook, for reasons I can't quite imagine, other than this strong ownership of own space that he keeps expressing. That's the behavior I was calling out when I took C's side in one step of the edit war. OK, I shouldn't have, but that's how I delivered my impression and advice to K. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about that: {{unsigned}} is not a signature; despite the double-revert, C. did "author" the silly link; and I don't think editors have the right to forcibly remove their remarks after adding them (if the link could even be called a remark). Still, I can't imagine why either one felt the need to continue the dispute, and I don't think it matters who was right at this point. There are so many ways either could have avoided the problem. If K. absolutely had to credit C. with the link, why not use an annotation that is obviously not a signature, something like "This link helpfully supplied by Checkingfax on 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)"?

I'm much more concerned about C.'s "spontaneously combust" remark, his repeated lack of candor here, his nonsense copyright claim backed up by a nonsense rationale that, when confronted, he refuses to concede is nonsense because copyright is "best left to copyright attorneys and Wikilawyers," and his apparent inability to understand that he has done anything wrong. (I'm not out for blood; I like Checkingfax, and I would have laughed it off had I been in K.'s shoes. But I'm not K., and we are here in part because of C.'s actions.) Rebbing 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

C didn't "forcibly remove their remarks after adding them"; his remarks had already been removed; he removed the attribution after K added the link back (and there was no remark; just a link to a conversation, hardly in need of attribution, and no longer added by C since the one he added had been removed already). As for "spontaneously combust", how is that Spinal Tap joke offensive? Did someone think he really intended that K should self-ignite somehow, or just that he should change directions? I don't know what the copyright issue was, but if his edit was so bad, why did K decide to put it back after first reverting it? I can't see that C did anything wrong here, other than maybe not have the best reaction to K's behavior; like me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it was a silly thing to insist on attributing, but it was written by C, even if it was reverted and restored by K. (Similarly, I have a right to insist on attributing comments that have been moved to my talk page archive, even though I, not the author, am responsible for their being where they are.) I've never seen Spinal Tap, so, yes, I truly assumed he was simply saying that he wished K. would catch on fire and die, which I thought was over the line. Regardless of how K. felt about it, redacting another editor's comment on a third editor's talk page over amorphous copyright concerns is not okay. But K. does need to chill. Rebbing 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax wrote no comment. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

He did, however, unequivocally remove text and replace it with something else. Something that should always be noted. I certianly would have placed a note saying who has done what if this had been done on my talk page. I too am quite concerned about the behavior of all the actors here; Checkingfax for - well lots of stuff that has already been mentioned, Dicklyon - for pouring fuel on the fire, and Kevjonsin for continuing this dispute well past its 'sell by date'. It looks like the feuding has stopped on K's talk page so why doesn't, as suggested above by Rebbing and assuming the thread is something where is is desirable to have a clear history once it is archived, K just remove the {{unsigned}} and replace it with a note and a diff of the refactoring edit. Then be done with this and move on.

At this point nothing is going to happen and this should be closed (really it should have been closed days ago) Checkingfax should be reminded that if they refactor someone else's edit they should leave a note - if you do not want to leave a note do not edit another's comment. Kevjonesin should be encouraged to recognize when a thread like this has become pointless and when to drop the stick. Finally Dicklyon needs to avoid pouring fuel on a conflict they are not involved in - if you must join in be polite and non-confrontational, at least at the start. Jbh ^Talk 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this affair did bring out my pyromaniac tendency; I can see that now. As to Checkingfax removing text and putting a link in its place, yes he did that; his main "contribution" was the removal of stuff he had been asked to remove. After that whole edit was reverted, he was clean of it. When K put the link back, in a different context, he misrepresented C's contribution by labeling it as he did. But, as everyone can see, that's all silly, trivial, and water under the bridge. This will be my last remark. Please close or ignore this mess. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Jbhunley, Dicklyon was in fact altering User_talk:Kevjonesin earlier today.[145][146]

And Checkinfax has continued by altering entries of mine here at WP:ANI.[147][148][149][150]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Drop. The. Stick. Nothing is going to happen. You have made this thread so long no one new is going to read it and those who have are likely pretty much fed up even those, like me, who agree with you. @Dicklyon: please stay off of Kevjonesin's talk page. You are not helping. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 16:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

p.s.— Please consider for yourself how things might seem if over a relatively short period of time four or five editors chose in error to repeatedly take liberties with your talkpage without offering the courtesy of direct discussion beyond edit summaries. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If I could not work it out I would probably go to the talk page of admin whose opinion I trusted and ask them for help. I would not create walls and walls of text, attack bystanders and continue the arguement after I saw nothing was going to happen. If you want to document the change made to your talk page for archival purposes add a note and diff showing how Checkingfax changed things and move on. If you, for whatever reason, specifically want the {{unsigned}} there, leave it (Although I would suggest you just add a note saying 'redacted by Checkingfax [diff] since there is no grey area with that and remove the {{unsigned}})and if they remove it again go ask an admin for help. NeilN is a good chap and has already commented here and is familiar with the situation. But for now drop it until something happens. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

HangingCurve – false representation of sources

I have had my concerns about the edits of HangingCurve (talk · contribs) ever since they started to appear on my watchlist a few years ago. Initially this was largely to due to the unencyclopedic language they used (and still do).[151][152] This later became more about the unreferenced material they were adding to articles,[153][154][155][156][157] or changing the information in a sentenced referenced to a certain source but not changing the source.[158][159] Recently I began to revert any unsourced additions that I saw them make.

Very recently, their edits have become very troubling because they are repeatedly misrepresenting the sources being used when adding references (someone else had spotted them doing this some time ago[160]). I can understand an editor making a mistake once, even twice, but today I spotted a third occasion where they had done this in the last month. The ones I have brought them up on are:

1. 15 January 2017 Re-adds material I had deleted for being unreferenced using a source that does not contain any reference to the claim being supported.
2. 30 January 2017 Readds material previously deleted again using a source that does not support the claim being referenced
3. 2 February 2017 Adds new material to an article with a source, but source does not support this claim (conveniently they have not used a direct link to the relevant section (despite a previous request to do so), but I have been through the sections that cover this era of Polish history and cannot find anything that vaguely resembles the facts being referenced).

I am not sure whether this is malicious or just an extreme WP:COMPETENCE issue (perhaps trying to head off any reverting by just sticking in any old reference that vaguely covers the period of history in question), but I am getting tired of seeing this user's edits appear on my timeline because invarliably they are problematic (and I only see the ones they make to election articles – as their contribution history shows, they cover a wider area than that). I'm also not really sure what needs to be done, but the issue definitely needs raising – a quick check through their talk page and its archive show that concerns have been repeatedly raised with regards to their editing (this archive in particular contains numerous complaints about their sourcing, or lack of). Possibly a last warning followed by a series of escalating blocks if this continues? Cheers, Number 57 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have apologized for any mistakes I may have made--they were not out of malice, and I have tried to be more careful of late. Again, I apologize.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve, you say you have tried to be more careful of late but the most recent example is from yesterday. How is this being more careful? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned how two of the satellites to Poland's ruling Communists had a fixed percentage of seats in return for accepting their subservient role. I could have said more about what it meant, but I simply mentioned the fixed percentage. I was going to change it to "a fixed number" before it was reverted.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But that's not supported by the source either. You don't really seem to understand what the problem is here... Number 57 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can come to an agreement on this and resolve this misunderstanding. Here's what the source says for what I was trying to insert earlier: "In return for acknowledging the leading role of the PZPR, the two major coalition partners and three smaller Catholic associations received a fixed number of seats in the Sejm. Although one of the latter category, Znak, was technically an independent party, its allotment of five seats gave it very limited influence. Typically, the United Peasant Party held 20 to 25 percent of the Sejm seats and the Democratic Party received about 10 percent." How can we word this and resolve this issue? HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, I eventually managed to find where in the source website this sentence is stated – why could you not link to the page where it actually states this rather than force editors to trawl through various pages on a website? This doesn't excuse the other instances of false representation raised though. Number 57 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at another edit you made yesterday, you have cited the claim "With no other choice but to appoint a Solidarity member as prime minister, Jaruzelski appointed Solidarity's Tadeusz Mazowiecki as the country's first non-Communist prime minister since 1948" to pages 273–275 of this book. However, the source says nothing like this. What it does say is "On August 14, Kiszczak resigned, and, on August 24, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a Catholic journalist and an opposition activist, was accepted by the Sejm as the new premier." It says nothing about him being appointed by Jaruzelski and nothing about him being the first non-Communist Prime minister since 1948. How do you explain this? Number 57 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the wording of the article on the 1990 election, I thought the source mentioned that as well. I apologize ... I toned it down accordingly.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are other admins not bothered about this??? Number 57 17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said, this is either malicious or a competence issue. AGF and assume it's a competence issue. HangingCurve knows their editing and sourcing is going to be scrutinized more heavily and more sloppiness will likely trigger editing sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as HangingCurve has just falsely represented a source again (I have this book, and all that page contains are the dates of elections and referendums from 1919 until 2007), I have blocked them for a week. @HangingCurve: Next time it will be a month, then a year, and then indefinitely.

Aside from this, I wonder whether a mass undo of their edits is needed as I doubt these are the only instances of them doing this? Number 57 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve has a past of revisiting the Montreal Expos article to re-insert unsourced, non-neutral content. Here is an example about the sale of the team to MLB, calling it a takeover by the commissioner's office: 2008 attempt; 2009 attempt; 2010 attempt Here are examples of adding content beyond what was contained in the cited text: [161]; [162] (re-insertion attempt a few days later with misleading edit summary: [163]). HangingCurve has added missing content (albeit at times with repetitive, overly verbose wording), so a blanket reversion was often not necessary, but sometimes there was too much opinionated material to sort through (see Talk:Montreal Expos#Partnership agreements for a discussion of one instance). isaacl (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

HangingCurve has been an editor for at least 11 years and is a former admin. I think he deserves a certain amount of goodwill here. I've worked with him on several articles relating to television stations and other subjects. While we've had some minor editorial disagreements, I haven't encountered the problem you describe on anything I'm familiar with. Would a mass undo affect other people's work? JTRH (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to reply to another editor, as I didn't suggest any mass undo? There were some concerns about the editor's actions as an admin, but as I mentioned, I agree there have been many edits adding new content. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant to respond to Number 57, above. I apologize for the confusing indentation. JTRH (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot operator not following bot policy

• B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• B-bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot

After reviewing the bot policy, it was not abundantly clear where to bring up an issue like this, so I thought this might be an appropriate venue. If not, please feel free to redirect me. It is in my estimation that User:B is in violation of the Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Good_communication portion of Wikipedia:Bot policy. To quote this policy,

Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general. At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves.

That being in mind, I had a good faith issue with one of the actions the bot (User:B-bot) performed, where I left a note on their talk page. That was back on January 2nd. Towards the end of the month, I noticed this user had made edits, so it appeared as if I was being ignored, so I again made a note (on January 28th) on their talk page. User:B still has not responded to this issue. Furthermore, there are several other questions and issues raised on their talk page over the past month that have not been addressed; see User_talk:B#Bot_creation_of_categories_2 and the queries below that. I took a look at User:B-bot's contribs and it appears as if it does quite a bit of productive work on the site, so I very much hesitate to stop the bot (which can be done from here), but it appears as if this bot operator is not in compliance with the above quoted portion of the policy by leaving issues unaddressed for over a month. I'm not sure if that means shutting down the bot until the user starts complying with policy or what, which is why I'm bringing the issue here. VegaDark (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any problems. My findings and suggestions, bulleted for clarity:

• As stated on their talk page, B is a semi-retired user, so I wouldn't expect a timely response from them for any query. Furthermore, all of us are volunteers, and nobody is required to respond to you, me, or anybody else who edits this site.
• As far as I can tell, the bot is performing its tasks correctly. I'm puzzled by your note on their talk page. You seem to be interpreting a database report as some sort of backlog; it is not a backlog.

-FASTILY 09:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As to your first point, you're essentially arguing that because a user becomes semi retired, that the bot policy doesn't apply to them? I don't see any part of the policy making exceptions for users who proclaim themselves retired. If anything that would suggest that users who are semi retired are not allowed to run bots if they aren't prepared to comply with policy and actually respond to posts on their talk page. You're right, we are volunteers and we don't have to respond to anyone, but presumably if we are going to have that part of the bot operator policy we should either remove that or enforce it. Like administrators are expected to respond to queries on our talk pages promptly and cordially, so too are bot operators. As to your second point, it's completely irrelevant what my issue was insofar as the reason for coming to AN/I. I agree most users won't see the issue I raised as a particlurly big deal - it's the lack of communication and therefore violation of policy what should be discussed here, not whether you agree or not with my good faith complaint about the bot. That being said I would certainly characterize the database reports as backlogs, whether official or not, and I would submit that even if I were completely in the wrong about an issue I brought there about the bot, a cordial and timely response would be warranted. Furthermore you don't address that there are other users leaving messages on the talk page that are going unaddressed - this policy is in place for a reason. VegaDark (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric, I'm not here because I want to argue with you. I simply reviewed the grievances you described, and found no evidence of disruption or wrongdoing. Policy could not possibly cover 100% of cases, and when it doesn't, we apply common sense... -FASTILY 11:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if my rhetoric came off as too aggressive, I was not reading it that way - just relaying my points as to why I don't think this should be ignored. VegaDark (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just to respond to Fastily's comments above: Communication is *required* on wikipedia as part of a collaborative editing environment. Users who fail to communicate when good faith concerns are raised about their editing tend to get blocked until they do so. WP:BOTPOL is more explicit in that queries relating to bots should be responded to promptly either by the bot owner, or a proxy arranged by them if they are unable to. Secondly to lead on from the actual query - it seems a perfectly reasonable question, why is a bot creating categories in advance of them being needed, that may not be used at all, and end up getting deleted if they are unused? (The answer btw is here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. It explains why the bot is creating the categories, but it doesn't explain why it is creating them a month in advance of the earliest possible date they will actually become populated. All other maintenance categories are created at most a couple days before there is a chance they will become populated. I also don't particularly understand the reasoning as to why the category couldn't be auto-created after detecting that a category is populated (similar to other maintenance categories being deleted and then created by a bot when it detects them populated), but that's the lesser of the two issues. VegaDark (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Good Lord. First, thank you for the notification that did not link to the section header and makes me search for what you are talking about. Second, Wikipedia is not a battleground - is it really necessary to find a rule to pigeonhole your request into? How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful", not "RULE BREAKING OVER HERE!!!!!!!!"? Third, I have made the changes you requested - my bot will no longer pre-create next month's categories and will not create this month's category unless/until it is needed. --B (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• First off, as to the notification, I followed the directions at the top of the page which doesn't include any parameters. Admittedly I did not look into the actual template to determine the potential parameters to make it easier to find, but I also did not think it would be particularly hard to do a search for your user name, not to mention the direct links you would have received as a notification due to pings. Second, I was not "pigeonholing" a request into a rule. You can't both be operating a bot and ignoring your talk page for months at a time and be compliant with policy - plain and simple. As to "How about "here's an idea to make the bot more useful"," that's exactly the mentality I approached you initially with. I left you two good faith messages on your talk page with plenty of time to respond, which you chose to ignore, and you're trying to make me out to be the bad guy here? I am happy you implemented the change. Going forward I am hopeful that you will be more responsive to good faith issues brought up on your page. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

IP is not listening

I am tired of dealing with this guy or girl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:104.54.92.176. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because.....??? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because of what's briefly described on, and linked from, User talk:104.54.92.176, I imagine. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That said, it's rather unclear. The most recent objection from BeenAroundAWhile seems to be to this edit, in which the IP adds "[[Category:Populated places established in 1901]]" to an article about something described as "a neighborhood and district". BeenAroundAWhile reverted this, with the edit summary "Reverting silly addition". To me it does seem odd at best to say that a neighborhood or district was "established" in any year; but for all I know the IP just meant that this was when the first building was put up. Certainly nothing in the article supports it (or directly contradicts it). It doesn't seem a helpful edit. OTOH on the IP's talk page, BeenAroundAWhile merely calls it "disruptive". Is this likely to inform or help the IP? -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• OK, so BeenAroundAWhile has posted 10 notifications of various disruptive edits on the IP's talk page in the past 3 months. That's a sizable amount. At the same time, BeenAroundAWhile, you need to notify the IP of this ANI discussion, on their talk page. You can use the template in red at the top of this page if desired. Also, it would be good to describe the nature of your problem more fully, and also suggest a remedy. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• BeenAroundAWhile notified the IP about four hours before you, Softlavender, suggested that they should do this. (But I agree with the rest.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't at all consider what he wrote an even remotely adequate notice (and I think BeenAroundAWhile should know better), so I've added one just now. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: my particular interest is in Geography articles, especially California ones. That said: Reviewing IP's February edit at Crenshaw, Los Angeles, seems to be an unsourced addition of a category, which was reverted, with a warning on the IP's talk page. Presumably adding unsourced material to (non-BLP) articles rarely merits either a warning or an ANI thread, so more has been going on. I would like to see diffs as to what exactly are the problematic edits and why they are problematic. If it's adding unsourced material, it would be better to tell the IP that's the issue; calling the addition "silly" doesn't really get the point across about what is wrong with it. And while we could debate whether a neighborhood can have an "established date" (I think a strong argument can be made that it can; just as a city can have both a settlement date and an incorporation or charter date, either of which could be an "establishment" date). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by User:Stemoc

Hi, I'd first like to emphasise that this issue about incivility and personal attacks has already been discussed with Stemoc (talk · contribs) at length (by myself and others before me) -- yet, unfortunately, the penny has clearly not dropped.

Stemoc has a history of battleground behaviour -- from edit warring against consensus (specifically, WP:EDITCONSENSUS), to blatant name-calling of fellow editors —and BLP subjects—, in spite of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Here are some examples from recent history:

Towards fellow editors

• 09:06, 28 October 2015: "restore recent image, remove it again and I will REPORT you."
  • In response to a new user undoing his edit. As discussed further, here.
• 14:03, 25 March 2016: "Reverted to revision 711750514 by Stemoc (talk): Idiot. (TW)"
• 14:19, 28 May 2016: "Undid revision 720560110 by NikeCage68 (talk) Lyon will play in the top 14 next season IDIOTS. it was confirmed in MARCH."
• 22:22, 28 May 2016: "he has played 8 and 6 for biarritz, seriously dude, if you don't watch top 14 rugby, don't edit any related articles"
• 23:50, 29 September 2016: "luckily, stupidity does not apply to other pages"

Towards BLP subjects

• 06:37, 14 August 2016: "Undid revision 734106464 by Winkelvi (talk) he looks so retarded in that picture..jesus.."
  • Re Michael Phelps.
• 11:53, 25 September 2016: "new pic, less Megamind head"
  • Re Malcolm Turnbull
• 23:51, 29 September 2016: "update image, remove Megamind"

Towards both

• 15:30, 18 April 2016: "restore close focus, idiot, this is her headshot, the current pic makes her look drunk."
  • Insulting an editor and the BLP in one sentence.

Past 24-hours, alone

• 12:30, 4 February 2017: "undo, the "supposed" consenus was to use the MEGAMIND image was only for Malcolm Turnbull, not for any other related pages and even then, there was no "Actual" consensus to use that filth"
  • In reference to a photo of Malcolm Turnbull BLP that he dislikes, comparing it to the likes of Megamind.
• 06:35, 4 February 2017: "stupidity does not apply to other pages"
  • Undoing an edit from Pmokeefe (talk · contribs), who in turn, was only undoing an unexplained edit from an IP.
• 14:59, 4 February 2017: "pathetic"
  • "Now where the F is this "consensus" that you people keep talking about??? Last i checked, consensus is not the views of ONE PERSON ONLY...and even that person changed his mind when a new option was provided. Pathetic trolls" —— Towards Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) and presumably myself.
• 16:16, 4 February 2017: "Undid revision 763609518 by MelbourneStar (talk) remove vandalism, you didn't even bother to answer there or here on my talk page... p.s WP:TEMPLAR"
  • Accused me of vandalism (after warning him re NPA), despite providing no proof whatsoever to the claim.
• 13:22, 5 February 2017: "rep"
  • In a post within this ANI discussion – he blatantly ignores WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS – by referring to myself and Timeshift as "vandals" – despite providing no proof of the claim.

In summary: labelling editors he disagrees with "idiots", "stupid", and going a step further and denigrating BLPs we write articles on -- I'm not at all seeing how their conduct is in any way acceptable. As I had discussed with him before: consensus on the talk page and/or WP:EDITCONSENSUS for disputed content solves things, not edit warring or attacking editors. They have ignored this time and time again.

I think they have the right intentions – but they are going about things the wrong way. I also think it's about time they consider what they say to people. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• LOL, sadly that is one way to explain all of this, first we have editors who are intentionally WP:OWNING certain article on which they mass edit on, lets start with the Malcolm Turnbull article first, Everytime i "fix" the image with a much better image, I get reverted by a nonsense comment saying that that image has no consensus and if you look at the talk page of Malcolm Turnbull under "Which photo from these two?", there is infact "NO CONSENSUS", so where do they keep coming up with this stupid notion that a picture which makes the Prime Minister look really really funny is the one chosen by "many" (yes many), infact only ONE person agreed to it. The user which has the most issue with this is Timeshift9 who as you can see in Malcolm Turnubull's article has made 225 edits to that article alone, 4 times more than the nearest page editor, In my opinion, we call people who does that violating WP:OWN and if you look in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and quote "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.". Timeshift9 has a habit of thinking he owns all article related to Australian politics and refuses changes on them, same would apply to MelbourneStar. First they come up with a "consensus" that does not exist and then they have the guts to warn me to not violate it on my user talkpage which is why i reverted it as "vandalism" because that is what it was, there was never any consensus, what we have here is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing whereby editors are intentionally ensuring that an article is up to their standards and do not care about improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Funny how MelbourneStar tries to go through my edits to post stuff which are infact misconstrued. I'm a Licence Reviewer and uploader on commons so when i come across a good image, I try to get it added to articles and then we have people who OWN articles that try to get it removed because they want their "own" version of the article, they do not care about the project. The image these people keep trying to add to that article is one of the worst quality i have seen. This is the full version of the image and as you can see, the image was taken poorly thus giving the image a form of a mirror/concave look on the edges which when cropped, make the Prime Minister look like someone with a HUGE FOREHEAD and yet somehow, I'm the one that is being disruptive. I have added thousands of images to commons which are used in 100's of articles across wikimedia and I even went to a few flickr users and got some images of Malcolm Turnbull released on a free licence just so that we can replace that poor quality with with 2 good ones suck as IMAGE A / IMAGE B and yet people like Timeshift/Melbourne are intentionally trying to stop me from "fixing" the article but coming up with a bullshit excuse which as you can see in my first post "does not exist". This is not the fist time someone with their own Personal Agenda has brought me to ANI and honestly, its pretty tiring. If we are going to allow people to WP:OWN articles than why not make it a NEW POLICY? and then try to use this "fake and non-existing consensus" on other related pages. MelbourneStar and Timeshift9 are infact not only in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR but also Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and they both should be taken to task for it. Don't believe me? just go see the related pages and see how many times those two have intentionally removed any valid edits because they themselves do not see it fit.--Stemoc 12:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There we go again: more aspersions -- no proof, just accusations. Very poor form, considering I took the liberty of proving where you have attacked editors/subjects of BLP.

You need to have a good read of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which happens to be another path of establishing consensus, which in this case established consensus for the Malcolm Turnbull image that you have so labelled him looking like "Megamind". Hence: It is the status-quo image on the Malcolm Turnbull article. If you want consensus to change, discuss it thoroughly on article's talk page, gain support for the change, have the discussion closed: and there you go.

Instead, you have resorted to name-calling, edit warring, accusations without providing any proof.

If I have engaged in vandalism which is one of the most serious (and insulting) things to accuse a long-standing editor: prove it. Where are the diffs that show that I "intentionally made abusive edits to disrupt Wikipedia"? hint: there are none.

Furthermore, let me remind you: Timeshift didn't call X editor "idiot". You did. Timeshift didn't tell another editor to stop editing an article (sounds like WP:OWN to me... mirror?). You did. Timeshift didn't call the subject of one of our BLPs "retarded" or another "drunk". You did.

Instead of taking responsibility, instead of apologising, or instead of at least trying to explain yourself: you deflect. Well done. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've barely been on wikipedia lately, often taking lengthy breaks, but somehow i've found myself part of an ANI... sigh... really? See the 'file usage on other wikis' section at the default Turnbull image... literally dozens and dozens of concurrent uses across en wiki and in several other wikis, and for very long periods of time. One simply cannot argue that the image does not have mass consensus across wikipedia as Turnbull's image. I don't want to assume bad faith, but when I read their various incendiary comments, I simply cannot escape the feeling that the user feeds on discord, and additionally that this ANI may be counter-productive. I've said what I have to say on the matter and will not be contributing to it further, at least in its present incarnation. Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So sorry to drag you into this, I only posted on your talk page re this discussion because you had been mentioned. Nevertheless, you make a very good argument re consensus across Wikipedia(s). I hope this is just as evident to Stemoc, as it is to those reading this discussion. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• If more of the "stupid idiot" type comments were taking place now, I'd certainly have no reservations in supporting a block; this kind of vitriolic language and textbook incivility seriously calls into question the editor's competence to collaborate productively on the project. That said, all of that conduct is stale; most of the diffs regarding that behavior are months old and one dates to 2015. Only one took place in the last month. So while I certainly accept it as evidence that this editor has displayed a combative and hostile mindset, I can't say as I would support a block as useful at this moment, based on those comments alone. I also think that MelbourneStar is doing their argument a disservice by trying to twist the "retarded", "drunk" and "Megamind" comments into attacks on the subjects of BLPs, when Stemoc is using those terms not to say that said persons are like those things, but rather to illustrate his opposition to the images (though I would advise Stemoc that "retard/retarded" is considered a slur by any today, if utilized outside of certain niche clinical contexts, and it should probably be avoided, as he is using it, altogether).

All of that said, if those diffs and Stemoc's response above are indicative of his approach to content disputes and conflict on this project broadly, I would say there is a problem here. WP:Civility is not an option on this project, even when one is certain that they have the right end of the stick with regard to policy on the content issue. The fact that Stemoc raises the fact that they have been brought repeatedly to ANI by different parties, but does not seem to contemplate the possibility that their own approach may have contributed to this being a recurrent issue also feels like a red flag to me. Still, I don't see a sanction here at present and it is hard for me to see what outcome MelbourneStar is hoping for here. If they had evidence of edit warring, particularly in conflict with clear consensus, that would be one thing, but that does not seem to be the argument they are making. Rather they are alleging that Stemoc should be sanctioned for civility/AGF/NPA issues, and while Stemoc seems to be no stranger to these attitudes, they are not on display in the recent diffs, at least not to the level where I feel a block is warranted. Characterizing another editor's actions as "vandalism" when they were clearly conducted in good faith (and you just happen to disagree with them) is problematic and Stemoc should be advised to stop that immediately. But again, it's short of blockable offense, imo, and I feel (from following up on those diffs and discussions) that MelbourneStar is not showing a healthy amount of perspective here either and is playing a role in keeping the tension ratcheted up here too. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I encouraged positive avenues, through further discussion on talk, through building consensus; I warned of bad behaviour. I did my job – Stemoc isn't exactly a new user, he happens to have been here a tad longer than me. "MelbourneStar is not showing a healthy amount of perspective here either and is playing a role in keeping the tension ratcheted up here too" — is this not an example of victim blaming? because I certainly don't appreciate being accused of vandalism (as a diff from yesterday shows) without any proof whatsoever, and in response to this ANI, be further accused of vandalism and disruptive editing by the same user --- again, with no proof.

Edit–warring: User_talk:Stemoc/archive you'll see that the examples just jump out to you. Might I add, he has been blocked before for edit-warring.

Re the BLP comments: I completely disagree with your characterisation that Stemoc's comments were no problem at all BLP-wise, considering the fact that he didn't say the photo's are "retarded" (etc.) – the people in those photos were: we have WP:LIBEL which discourages those types of comments, and I felt as though he was dancing right on that line. Are we supposed to be thankful that at least he didn't publish those comments on a talk page? Of course not. They are inappropriate, and what message does it send to new users? Some aspects of Wikipedia are considered sacrosanct – I assume the treatment of BLP subjects are one of them. If he has a problem with an image, he takes it to the talk page – he doesn't abuse the subject, abuse another editor while doing so, and also abuse the edit summary feature while he's at it.

Finally, re name-calling: I only added the older diffs as to show a clear pattern. A pattern that actually still exists. He referred to Timeshift and myself as "pathetic trolls" yesterday — if upholding consensus, asking they discuss their edits, being courteous, makes me a "pathetic troll" — this is certainly not the project I or anyone else with a degree of self-respect would wish to take part in. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Melbournestar is just trying to hide that fact that he along with Timeshift9 have been for a long time using the project for their own personal agendas through disruptive editing and Owning behaviour by trying to portray me as the 'bad guy'. Yes i'm rude to people who i deem negative to the project and none of my edits he linked above are wrong or bad. Sometimes you have to slap your kids if they get too spoiled and i'm willing to do just that. If you look at the Global file usage of the image they are trying to enforce on all articles related to Malcolm Turnbull on Enwiki through its history, they were all added by either MelbourneStar OR Timeshift9 and then they came up with their non-existing policy claiming that "NO ONE" can change those images on any of those articles because they have no consensus. Consensus is limited to ONE ARTICLE when enforced unless voted upon and as of now, there is NO CONSENSUS for the use of that image ANYWHERE and yet when anyone tries to change it, they change it back citing consensus. I'm not the first one that tried to change that image, see the page history for any of those pages where that images was enforced by those two. This is a CLEAR case of OWNBEHAVIOUR so isntead of falling for their silly ruse why not try to see the many times people have tried to change the image only to be bullied off by those two "vandals". Anyone that tries to cheat their way and try to violate the policies is a vandal and thus i called him such. Here are a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4 and others you can see between 20th October to 25th October 2016. Timeshift9 claims its used on dozens on enwiki pages but what he doesn't say is that it was enforced/changed by him without any discussions and now they refuse to remove it citing that we need consensus to replace a "poor image" when the fact is, that we do not need a consensus to remove or replace a poor image, EVER. Instead of targeting me @Snow Rise: compare the images linked in my post above and tell me if you think the image they are trying to "enforce" on all Malcolm Turnbull articles is a good image (not only in quality, but angle and image standard) and then compare with the ones that i was trying to replace them with and tell me what you think...--Stemoc 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, no proof whatsoever of vandalism, disruptive editing or even using the project for personal gain. This user is drawing WP:ASPERSIONS of myself, without any proof – how is this not in bad-faith? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: The problem is that you have not, at least in my opinion, really met your burden with regard to the present dispute for showing that the community should impose a sanction (though I do admit I failed to notice that the "pathetic trolls" comment was directed at you and it changes my perspective at least a little as to the extent that this can be considered a current issue), nor have you suggested another community action to resolve the matter.

You're also mixing strong arguments about matters you are well-justified to be bothered by and to bring to the community's attention with other arguments that are reaching to say the least, and which make you look like you are having just as much trouble with AGF as Stemoc is. When Stemoc says "I oppose this photo; it makes the subject look drunk" they are clearly saying that the picture is inappropriate because (in their opinion) it is a poor representation of the subject. They are clearly not saying "This person is a drunk." And your attempt to present the situation otherwise makes it look like you have a confirmation bias with regard to Stemoc which makes you see all of his contributions in the worst possible light--or, alternatively, you know what he really means but are willing to throw anything at the wall to see what will stick, which would be worse. These attenuated, nonsensical arguments which run counter to Stemoc's express goals do not bolster your core argument--they weaken it and give cause to question your own perspective on this dispute, in which you have clearly lobbed just as many broadsides as Stemoc (albeit with less recourse to WP:PA's than he has demonstrated). You have legitimate grievances here with regard to Stemoc's civility, so don't muddy the waters with these ancillary, dubious assertions that he is out to smear BLPs when the problem is actually that he is too zealously trying to protect the images of those persons and losing sight of proper behaviour in doing so.

@Stemoc: "Yes i'm rude to people who i deem negative to the project and none of my edits he linked above are wrong or bad. Sometimes you have to slap your kids if they get too spoiled and i'm willing to do just that."

No, that is absolutely unacceptable on this project. You don't get to choose when WP:Civility does or does not apply to you based on your personal assessment of the net worth of the person you are in dispute with. That's not how things work here and you've been around long enough that you should certainly know that by now. WP:C applies to every interaction you have within this community, no matter what your private assessments of your co-contributors (which need to be kept to yourself insofar as you consider them "idiots") and no matter how tense the nature of the discussion or how wrong you think the other party is. You are certainly not empowered to "slap" them to correct what you perceive as deficiencies of their character. If you continue to voice perspectives like that, or act in a fashion that continues to suggest that you think that is a permissible approach to interaction on this project, I'll propose a block of you myself, not withstanding my initial defense of the severity of your conduct above. Also, as a side point not particularly relevant to Wikipedia or the issue at hand, but important enough that it needs to be said anyway: it is really not acceptable to slap your child, and I'd appreciate it if you not bring child abuse as a model for proper behaviour into discussions here, especially as your go-to metaphor on how you intend to interact with others. Frankly, my reservations about MelbourneStar's approach to this thread not withstanding, I'm quickly losing any inclination to give him pushback on whether you should be sanctioned. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"This image makes x look retarded" –as opposed to– "This image makes the subject look unflattering". Please do excuse me if I see that as problematic. Nevertheless, I do see where you are coming from. My intention is certainly not to muddy the waters – I specifically added the comments re BLPs and their images, to highlight the overall pattern: he is not assuming good faith, not being civil, and is instead resorting to personal attacks and accusations. I have gone out of my way to provide diffs and evidence of this, yet he has not. My approach may be questionable, but at least I'm trying to prove my argument, yet they have not.

By his standard (from the past 24 hours, mind you), @Snow Rise: I could accuse you of "vandalism", being a "vandal" and being a "pathetic troll" –– and not even provide evidence of such claims. How is that in any way not actionable? It is in no way fair to you, and it blatantly ignores key behavioural policies. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've already cautioned him in the strongest terms I could voice as to the inappropriateness of his outlook on how to treat another editor he is in dispute with. I'm willing to give him WP:ROPE to see where he goes from here (though I admit his most recent post gives me pause as to the likelihood he is going to internalize what is being said). You may have more luck in convincing other editors here that he has already crossed the threshold into blockable behaviour, but I've provided my assessment, under the present facts. And you can bet I'm on the cusp of changing my mind if he doesn't get a healthier respect for WP:C fast, but I'm not quite there yet. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That isn't the point here, this is not the first time i was reverted by either Timeshift9 or Melbourne when i tried to replace the image, they are claiming a consensus that does not exist an they are now only pushing their own agenda and owning behavior, they are being rude about it as well, both of them. Infact the first time a few days back when i tried to replace the image, Timeshift9 did revert me citing the same "non-existing" consensus and if you look at his edits after that here, he changed the image on 3 other articles to the one he "likes" and again, there is no consensus on that image ANYWHERE. I'm uncivil to those that treat the project like shit and force their own agenda. If you have an issue with that then its your opinion. Saying that i should be blocked for upholding Wikipedia policies does make me wonder if you respect or follow the policies your self, again IGNORE all the nonsense Melbournestar posted above, he is trying to "deflect" the issue or as you pointed out, has a cognitive bias and to a degree, derail the issue because as it is with other trolls, by "derailing" the issue, you can paint someone else as a bad guy which is what they are doing right now so that people no longer focus on the real issue here and that issue is that the both of them are trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal wikipedia and they wanted it to be seen form their own perspective regardless of what the facts, cause really who cares about the facts right? they derailed/deflected this issue so much that even you @Snow Rise: forgot to ask the most important question in this thread which is "Where is this consensus?". I have only been blocked once in my 10 year history and even that was just a punitive ban as the person who reported me here was the one who got sanctioned and banned from removing or replacing images. If you look at this section where their "supposed consensus" came from (Talk:Malcolm_Turnbull#Which_photo_from_these_two.3F), even @IgnorantArmies: didn't understand why an image which never really got consensus was being forced and used upon that article and another editor (now banned) pointed out that the image these 2 are trying to enforce makes Turnbull look "like a meth head" (his words, not mine) and in that same thread if you read above, exactly a year ago, i pointed out why this image was improper and should not be used and quote 7 would have been good if the photographer had taken the picture correctly, you can actually see the picture concave inwards (making turnbull's head look like Megamind's head) which makes the image look a bit odd, usually cause by poor focusing on the camera lens . I never said that Turnbull was Megamind, infact they are intentionally using that image to make it look like Turnbull has a large forehead. All i have been trying to do for a YEAR now is to get that image removed by bringing in better and newer option but these two won't budge and refuse to change the image which "was enforced by them" and not by any Wikipedia policy and thus they are Snow Rise, in not only my view but the projects view, vandals. Not the first time people have tried to block me (unintentionally or intentionally) for trying to follow Wikipedia policies and it won't be the last. I don't break the rules here, I enforce it as much as i can and if you think that i was wrong for trying to fix an issue where by two editors who were not only breaking the 2 policies i mentioned above, but were lying as well about a consensus that does not exist then it your opinion even if its not a good one....and also, Spanking misbehaving children may be child abuse in a country where you live but not it mine, it builds character and above all respect for authority....You do realise that on wiki, they have a similar policy right? they ban or block users who do not behave, I believe Timeshift9 and Melbourne Star need to be taught a lesson because they are acting like spoilt kids who can do whatever they like and are not being held accountable for their actions. I find it sad that no one has tackled the main issue here and instead are targeting the one person trying to fight the issue, ironically, not the first time this has happened to me--Stemoc 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Stemoc is now accusing me of having been banned, or sanctioned on Wikipedia for the removal of images (there is no such ban or sanction against me). They have accused me of being a "vandal", of "vandalism" and being a "pathetic troll" (refer to diffs outlined in summary) without proof. I would like those imputations redacted. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you (either of you, in fact) to seek community input from an RfC or other established process rather than edit war and get increasingly nasty over the matter? I've looked into the root conflict here and I don't see that either of you has what might be considered guiding consensus, now that the dispute has been raised. I'd ask again that you just stop with the reference to striking children; however justified you claim it is in your culture, it is not an acceptable way to talk about other editors. But if you want to be married to a metaphor of children, let me tell you that it is hardly as if you are the composed adult guiding the ill-informed child towards the proper way of handling things. Both of you are in fact well outside the established rules for dispute resolution on this matter. You should have taken this to the talk page and discussed the content matter (avoiding any reference to the character or intelligence of the other person) and then reaching out for further community input if you could not come to a compromise solution. Edit warring and leaving increasingly hostile edit summaries is no solution.

But there's a broader issue you you just don't seem to want to hear here: even if you were absolutely correct that the other editors were stonewalling you and had settled into a WP:OWN mentality, you still don't get to breach our behavioural policies in order to "teach them a lesson". Nobody gave you authority to do that, and even if you were in such a position, it would not be conducted through WP:Personal attacks. I repeat: you are not allowed to attack the character or intelligence of other editors just because you believe they have the wrong mindset or even, hypothetically speaking, if they had violated policy themselves. That's not how disputes are handled on this project. You need to handle these situations by soliciting broader community input and (if there is a behavioural issue) seeking the assistance of an admin or reaching out to the community here. Please pay particular attention to the following, because it really as simple as this: you don't get to call someone idiotic on this project, even if you really, really think they are... You are certainly going to earn yourself a block if you can't accept that basic condition of participation here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: can I just say, this isn't an article issue for me. This is an issue about someone attacking others and myself, without even providing proof. I'm more then capable of discussing the merits of article content, and going through an RfC process: but this user has instead opted to personally attack me and accuse me of things that are completely false. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Proof? uhm what proof, this discussion has gone so long and none of you have told me where the so-called "consensus" came from, this is nonsense, both you and Tomeshift9 are enforcing a poor image in not one but multiple articles citing a "consensus" that neither of you can prove exists, what is this?the burden of proof? and if so, prove it... and @Snow Rise:, discuss what?, look at the link on Malcolm Turnbull's talk page, A discussion is there and neither of the two parties have added an input nor pointed out why that certain image has to be used..and this is why i'm angry right now, you would feel the same if you felt like you were talking to toddlers (just like the guy on my userpage) and MelbourneStar, I never said that it was you i got sanctioned, I said that i have been brought here more than once and only once was justice served (maybe not this time around cause no one here bothers to understand what the real issue is or bothers to come up with a solution) and yes, this definitely does feel like stonewalling, these two are not bothering to come up with a valid reason as to why that image should be used except citing a non-existing consensus, and then come here and claim that i'm the problem..... what is this? #Alternativefacts?--Stemoc 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"#Alternativefacts" well isn't that rich -- have a look at your conduct (also your user page), and then tell me I'm using "alternate facts". This AN/I is about your conduct: in name-calling, violating NPA and AGF. It's also about you accusing others of being vandals -- without providing evidence of such. Me disagreeing with you about your claim of consensus, as opposed to my claim --- does not make me a "vandal", a "pathetic troll".

I'd be more than willing to change my views re the Turnbull image if you decided to stop treating others horribly, and start being a tad more respectful. We can disagree about x, y or z – and still get through things via procedure and being rational. It doesn't need to be negative with all the name-calling. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

My conduct?, also very rich, you started this ANI to bully me off so that i stop changing an image that you and your friend Timeshift9 keep "enforcing" into articles without an actual valid reason and now that i see it, you two have done it in more than 10 articles so yeah its a big issue now because you two are now violating wikipedia policies which i have mentioned above and possibly many others. The fact was that there was never any consensus, I gave up for a while after both of you started reverting my edits but now that i realise that there was infact no consensus and yet you two are still at it, I'm sure you both need to be put to task now, "reverting legitimate edits is vandalism" and also, please stop lying, you have no intention of allowing the image to be changed because if you did, you would have brought it to Malcolm Turnbull's talk page by now, you haven't. You redacted my comment saying both of you were violating WP:OWN so that no one who reads that page finds out and takes you both to task. I'm not the one treating others horribly, Timeshift9 and you are by continuously removing any change made in relation to australia politics articles, and now as i pointed earlier, timeshift9 has intentionally replaced other images of Turnbull out of sheer pleasure with that same crappy version which i pointed out a YEAR AGO on Turnbu;;'s talk page which is just not good enough to be used on wikipedia and you two are citing a consensus which does not exist, and thus violating WP:OWN and heck I don't even touch those articles so i'm not involved and I can see it The issue is Timeshift9, he is the one doing it but you are enabling him by citing the "same" non existing consensus, for the umpteenth time " #THEREISNOCONSENSUS and there Never was one.--Stemoc 04:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You know, for as many times as you two have been going at it (here and elsewhere), it's amazing how completely you can still talk just right past eachother. Stemoc, for what it is worth, having read that entire discussion, I agree that the Sep. 2016 image that you supplied is by far the best option discussed in the rather largish span of time that the discussion has been on that talk page. I also agree that the !votes/shared perspectives were so mixed, that it is entirely reasonable to expect some engagement on the talk page over the matter, given some of the opinions were from more than a year before, when there were fewer options--and especially in light of the fact that several people had more recently endorsed your image.

That said, the point MelbourneStar has been trying to raise with you is much, much more important--in fact, a fundamental principle of engagement on this project. You cannot just unleash a tirade of insults whenever you encounter an obstacle in your editing here. If you are so unable to process this point that you not only ignore it in content discussions, but also don't realize when you are repeatedly making personal attacks and belittling your 'opposition' in an ANI discussion discussion about your conduct, I'm not sure what can be done to get your attention, short of a block. Your chances of prevailing on the Turnbull issue issue go way up if you just back away from the insults. You say you don't really care about this topic, but if that's true, Schmeezus, I'd hate to see what happens when you get crossed on a topic you DO care about! And honestly, you might reasonably be annoyed by a situation in which you go out of your way to provide new options and then feel like they weren't properly vetted. But it does not abrogate your responsibility towards WP:C. No "idiot", "stupid", "toddlers", and certainly not "children who need to be slapped around until they learn". This is the last time I am going to comment here until another community member does, but I really suggest you get ahead of things and apologize for the WP:personal attacks, then RfC the issue. There's a reason the most recent !votes support your new photos; they are the best options. You can easily prevail if you just stop taking every editorial matter so personally, or at least stop losing your cool. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Devencci2005 – disruptive editing

The user (Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told many, many times what they need to change and they haven't reacted in any shape or form. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I placed a short block to see if it will serve as a wakeup call.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It did not, unfortunately. I doubt they actually noticed the block. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

legal threat and outing

• 66.213.68.9 (talk · contribs)

User has been posting messages in issues regarding The World Tomorrow (radio and television), including outing with personal attack and legal threat ("WWCGarchives user, is guilty of criminally cyber harassment and libel, and can NAME can have issued a restraining order against him for this cyber harassment and jailed for it when the judge orders it removed if he refuses - it becomes a felony"), posted both on Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television) and on User_talk:Wwcg-archives. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted those edits and have requested Oversight, but I've only given a short NLT block as I don't really have time to properly investigate - I'll leave it to someone else to extend it and/or consider WP:DOLT as appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't we have a special kind of block -- the WOT Block -- for anyone involved in World of Tomorrow, in the general principle that it's always a waste of everyone's time? The way it would work is the moment anyone edits The World Tomorrow (radio and television) or its talk page, the software immediately blocks them. EEng 19:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but no. Sam Walton (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, truth really is stranger than fiction. EEng 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like another People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front thing. Don't you just love the way religion unites people? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just like good fences make good neighbors. EEng 19:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pity us poor career Wikipedians who have never watched the show, make no claims to owning the show, and are simply Wikipeding the article! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, how many legs does a Wikipede have, anyway? EEng 19:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Two long ones and a short one. At least in the males' case. HalfShadow 06:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, having never watched the show doesn't prevent false accusations of being made against us in edit summaries (seriously, the only thing they got right in that summary about me was my user name). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to believe, after all these millennia, that people can agree on a seven-day week but still can't get together on whether Friday, Saturday, or Sunday is the right sabbath. I mean, it would make sense if they would exploit that diversity to improve resource utilization by sharing facilities that currently go largely unused six days out of the week, but No, they've also gotta argue about the shape of the building and what kind of spire and the pictures on the wall and who consecrates it and shit like that. It's almost as if they're arguing just for the sake of having something to argue about. But of course that can't really be it. EEng 20:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Just leaving this here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted. The IP self identified as the same person as Garnerted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Following that link reminded me we have a preacher who named his dog for Dolly Parton! EEng 20:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This looks like another sock to me: User:Wwcg-archives Should I add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the posts by Wwcg-archives (talk · contribs), I'm guessing they are not a sock of Garnerted. Their posts suggest that they are in a copyright or trademark dispute with the socks of Garnerted. Both sides in that dispute need to take their argument outside of the Wiki and resolve them elsewhere; regardless of Wwcg-archives being a sock or not, this is not the place to work out their legal concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad faith user

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

---

I don't think Darkhawk is editing in good faith. Their user page currently reads "your mom" ([164]), the user seems to be going through articles and removing spoilers (a direct violation of WP:SPOILER) despite multiple reverts and edit warring at Unbreakable (film), and the user was making suspicious edits regarding the removal of sales data and proclaimed "advertisement" (which can be seen on their contributions and Talk Page). The user also vandalised DC Extended Universe, before neglecting to explain why, when asked. Given the removal of spoilers and this response on their Talk Page, it would seem that they may WP:NOTHERE. Going by how long this account has been around, I wonder if this might be a compromised account. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This user removed a spoiler from Unbreakable (film) on February 4,[165] and he did the same on January 23.[166] We have seen a lot of IPs, including both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, do the same recently. It might be worthwhile to check if Darkhawk is related to any of them. Especially since his post today on the talkpage[167] echoes the post of an IPv6 editor a few days ago.[168] Debresser (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Given this edit here, we may have a sock puppet situation on our hands. It's an amazing coincidence that this vandalism-only account was created and came out-of-nowhere almost immediately after I filed this report. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Then again, all of the pages that EdwardMorris has vandalised (except for this discussion) have been related to users that reverted him at the Irvine, California article (which Darkhawk has never edited, according to an edit history search). DarkKnight2149 23:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All due respect, but what the heck is wrong with you people? Someone keeps sticking a spoiler into the intro for Unbreakable, and I keep having to go back in there to remove it. I'm doing Wiki's work, here, and I don't understand why there's a massive discussion by a bunch of strangers about whether I'm acting in bad faith? - Darkhawk

You have been pointed to WP:SPOILER repeatedly now. And if you aren't editing in bad faith (I hope this is a misunderstanding), could you please explain the other questionable edits mentioned? DarkKnight2149 23:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Not a sock puppet, whatever that is" - Noted. DarkKnight2149 23:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't you people have better things to do? I'm an infrequent Wiki editor who tried to make one good-faith change on the stupidly spoilery Unbreakable (movie) article. Why are multiple talking about me like (a) I don't exist, and (b) like I did something terrible? (Also: when are you going to remove the spoiler from the intro to Split. I know you don't remove spoilers from Plot Summaries, but you should for introductory paragraphs. How many people do you think are currently looking up the movie Unbreakable because Shyamalan is hot again?) - Darkhawk

EdwardMorris just looks like a run-of-the-mill vandal to me. There are so many that I don't see much reason for him to be a sock of anyone in particular. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought he was a sock at first, but now I'm on the fence for the reason I mentioned above. Still not sure why they commented on this discussion, though. DarkKnight2149 05:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Are we done?

Yeah, the discussion closure mentioned the spoiler removals and possible sock, but absolutely nothing else. The admin missed the entire point of the report. Darkhawk still hasn't attempted to explain their highly questionable behaviour. DarkKnight2149 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to wait and see what occurs in the future? DarkKnight2149 17:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what a faith user is, but this does sound like a bad one. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reopened the thread as there's interest in continuing to discuss it. For reference the previous close message is here. Have left Darkhawk a warning re both spoilers and their history of disruptive editing and let them know any continuation will result in a block. Others might have blocked them already, and if anyone feels that's necessary they can be my guest. Otherwise, suggest we see how they respond to the above and if they amend their approach. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

With the warning in mind, I think that's probably the best approach (though, given that this has been collecting dust on their Talk Page for several months, I wonder if they'll even try to defend themselves at this report; I guess we'll see). DarkKnight2149 01:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacked dab page Kaisermühlen

Once again. (See the list of similar incidents I have compiled.)

1. On December 8, 2016, User:Doleit hijacked dab page Kaisermühlen with a biography.
2. They moved the page to Arthur Lipner, then retargeted the leftover redirect to one of the entries that had been on the dab page.

I will file a report at SPI. The dab page and its history (only two edits) need to be restored. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User indeffed, page moved back and restored. We need to come down hard on this practice so I've also revdelled the intermediate versions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I do the same too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Could an edit filter detect activity like this, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if something could just log moves of disambig pages, that would provide something easier to check than the general move log? Or maybe a "disambig" filter for viewing the move log (it would need to filter moves of pages tagged as disambig rather than with "disambiguation" in the title)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That could help, but the first action tends to be the removal of the disambiguation template. Presumably that's an uncommon action. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's only getting logged; removing the template is occasionally useful (e.g. an improper disambiguation page that gets redirected somewhere), so the filter shouldn't prevent such an edit. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Logging these pages moves would be very helpful. The combination of new users moving dab pages must be very unusual. Note that the sooner we can catch them, the more likely they are to stop (or at least pick a different route) since most undisclosed paid editors offer some form of money back guarantee if pages are deleted, but only if it's within 30 days or so. SmartSE (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Another: Special:Contributions/Seoeal Jasoe moved Reedijk (a stub, not a disambiguation page) to FormSwift, replaced the content, and redirected the original title. Peter James (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also: Special:Contributions/Linsura and Special:Contributions/Vickeu in the last few days, and Special:Contributions/Ksoek a month ago. Peter James (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for doing the detective work on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Turbana still needs fixing, I've only been able to move it back to Turbana (disambiguation) but now it redirects to Turbana, Bolívar with no link to the other article. If the intention was to make the municipality the primary topic I think a page move request is needed, particularly as when Turbana was created in 2006 it was a page for both the municipality and the banana company. Peter James (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are also disambiguation pages hijacked then cut and pasted back to their original titles, leaving the earliest disambiguation edits in the new article histories - two articles where this has been done are Evan Baehr and Evan Loomis. These are related to the Jason Ballard and TreeHouse, Inc articles where the disambiguation has just been redirected. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Moves, revdels, blocks, deletes - well I guess that's one way to catch up to Materialscientist in admin stats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It's no biggie, but when tidying these up, it's tidier if you delete the created article, then restore the previous dab edits at that title, then move the dab back to it's original title. Then there's no need to revdel and the deleted versions stay at the right page title rather than still being at the dab. SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: Sorry, I don't quite get you mean. Right now I move [hijacked title b] to [original title a], without leaving a redirect and deleting the existing [original title a]. What do I do instead? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: See Special:Undelete/Admiral_Markets_UK_Ltd which was where the dab had been moved to. I deleted that, then restored the old versions of the dab at Admiral_Markets_UK_Ltd, before moving that page back to the old dab title, without leaving a redirect. Like I said, no biggie, but this stops the dab history having random revdelled versions in it. SmartSE (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Range block needed for the Hanoi Vandal

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

---

As may be seen at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal, this person has been quite active in the last few months, with persistent genre warring especially related to songs that might or might not be considered "soft rock".

Most of the IP addresses are in the 49.144 group, but others are in the 113.20 group. If these two ranges are blocked then this guy will be greatly reduced in his options. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

To have any effect, you would need to block a /16 such as 49.144.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which is considered large. Would you have the patience to check through rangecontribs going back to 1 January to see what percentage appear to be vandalism? EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the earliest 100 edits in the linked list of 502 edits, and I found that 28 of 100 edits were made with good intentions, even though some of these were reverted. So 72% were vandalism or editing tests. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I blocked 49.144.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Hope this has a noticeable effect on the specific vandal. If you can find a narrower range that would still work, it may be justifiable to block it for longer. Though the person is known as the 'Hanoi vandal' many contributions from this range seem to be about the Philippines. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Low-level but chronic link degradation from anonymous editor 50.101.13.34

• 50.101.13.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.101.16.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.100.178.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's an editor who has been editing from three different IPs- currently at 50.101.13.34 (and formerly 50.101.16.172 circa July to August 2016 and 50.100.178.173 circa October to November 2016). The pattern of edits makes quite clear that these are the same person in each case.

They are persistently de-piping links or removing subsection links, such as in the recent examples here. Previously good links end up going to dab pages, subsection links get broken or in-text piping gets replaced with literal article names.

The user was previously notified in very AGF and helpful style where and how this was causing a problem, and then- only after not responding- given further warnings making clear where the problem was.

This is happening at a low, but continuous level, which doesn't seem to suit the requirements of vandalism reporting. However, it's clear that this is the same person, who has been notified of the problem repeatedly, and exhibiting the exact same pattern of behaviour.

(I've previously raised this issue at the village pump.)

Ubcule (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the user has been temporarily blocked by @EdJohnston:; don't know if it was in response to this or not, but appreciated anyway, thanks. Ubcule (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

IP: 107.184.220.254

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

This IP really doesn't get it or is not here, even after a block. Multiple warnings on breaking wikitables with nonstandard formatting (their most recent edits); not giving any consideration to MOS:BOXING by adding redundant/non-applicable infobox stats (the bulk of their edits otherwise, for which they were blocked at WP:EWN); and never any edit summaries or talk page responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this IP hasn't edited for over two days. I'm inclined to take no action until such edits continue. Otherwise, any action taken would appear punitive (see #4). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still doing it: [169] – just slowly. Same exact edits for which they were blocked before. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring/trolling on Bernard Lee

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

---

User:Tornatore2016 has exceeded WP:3RR and is continuing to restore the infobox on Bernard Lee without consensus, whilst trolling and using personal attacks.[170][171][172][173][174][175][176] JAGUAR  23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The place to report this would be the 3RR Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Even so, it looks like a troll-only account. I'll move it to that noticeboard anyway. JAGUAR  23:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a silly troll but no sense feeding it with more reverts, an admin will get around to blocking soon enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not nice. Blocked for 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC).

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

‎People's Mujahedin of Iran

At People's Mujahedin of Iran (also known as MEK, MKO) article, I believe the agents of the Iranian regime are making massive edits. Well-sourced informations, from UK parliament and other free Western sources, such as

"The Iranian government considers the MEK to be the organization that most threatens the Islamic Republic of Iran,[27] since it seeks a secular democratic republic.[28] Since mid-1981, and immediately after a June 20, 1981 pro-democracy demonstration of nearly ½ million MEK[29] supporters' in Tehran, the Islamic Republic cracked down on the MEK. Mass arrests and executions of the opposition have taken place in Iran since 1981. At least 120,000 MEK activists and supporters of other political movements are reported to have been executed during this time.[30]"

have been removed. See former revision of the article: [177]

And now ridiculous statements like "The group has no popular base of support inside Iran, but maintains a presence by acting as a proxy against Tehran" and "They hailed "His Highness Ayatollah Khomeini as a glorious fighter" have been added.

As late as Wed Jan 11, 2017, Iran regime mass arrested MKO supporters, during cleric Rafsanjani's funeral, as reported by Iran regime's own state-controlled media PressTV [178]

During cleric Rafsanjani's ( a cleric who was having disagreements with Iran's very longtime dictator Khamenei) funeral, many protested against regime, in support of opposition, as reported by NYTimes [179] and other free media, and even controlled Arab media [180]

In July 2016, more than 100,000 Iranian rallied to support MKO, according to reliable free source HuffingtonPost, among others. See [181]

The group is considered the main Iran opposition, Khomenei mass executed over 30,000 of them in 1 day. And there are recorded names of over 4,482 disappeared prisoners in 1 yr during Khomeini dictatorship, per AmnestyOrg. See 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners

At People's Mujahedin of Iran, only sources from free reliable media, like western media should be added. Iran regime proxies added controlled Iranian media and book sources, which should be carefully reviewed and removed if deemed unreliable or misquoted.

--ExliranP (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet, this account's contributions are only on this thread... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So consider it a single purpose account; that doesn't invalidate the report nor justify hatting it. General Ization ^Talk 03:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

AGF it's possible they're seeking anonymity with a new username due to fear of real-life repercussions. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea and General Ization: The Iran regime conducted 1000s of murders of opposition figures on foreign land. See Chain murders of Iran--ExliranP (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also see Shapour Bakhtiar, Fereydoun Farrokhzad, Gholam Ali Oveissi and Shahriar Shafiq, all of them, among many others, were killed by Iran regime on foreign land.--ExliranP (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@ExliranP:, all we can really do, absent the identification of a specific account consistently violating specific Wikipedia policies by introducing falsely sourced or unsourced content, is ask editors to keep an eye on the article and make sure that edits are well sourced and meet other policies such as undue weight. We can't require that someone prove that they are not employed by a foreign government before they are permitted to edit. General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It also may be much more effective to post this concern on the article's Talk page, as that is where editors who will exercise this oversight are likely to see your message. General Ization ^Talk 04:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Unless you have solid evidence that the article is being edited by the Iran regime (but see WP:OUTING and bear in mind that accusations without evidence are considered unacceptable personal attacks), this looks like a content dispute rooted in an assumption of bad faith (if not trolling). The removed material starting with "The Iranian government considers..." appears to have been primary source based synthesis. The claim that "the group has no popular base of support inside Iran" is sourced to a work published by the Brookings Institution -- not something you can claim is controlled by Iran. The rest of the material added is likewise sourced to western academic or journalistic publishers. The bit about the MEK hailing the Khomeini (which you present out of context) is sourced to a book published by I.B. Tauris. The best possible conclusion I can reach here is that you are extremely confused and operating out of blind emotion instead of comprehending reason. Drop it and walk away. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• FYI Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: It's not possible to gauge how much support opposition have when the regime executes anyone they believe belongs to the oppostion. So, all I'm asking is, add the following to the article:

The Iranian government considers the MEK to be the organization that most threatens the Islamic Republic of Iran, since it seeks a secular democratic republic. Since mid-1981, and immediately after a June 20, 1981 pro-democracy demonstration of nearly ½ million MEK supporters in Tehran, the Islamic Republic cracked down on the MEK. Mass arrests and executions of the opposition have taken place in Iran since 1981. At least 120,000 MEK activists and supporters of other political movements are reported to have been executed during this time.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ExliranP (talk • contribs)

You need to make your case on the talk page, not here. AN/I is not for content disputes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And it's primary source based synthesis, which we do not use. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:, I understand. whoever added that didn't know how Wikipedia works, but it's not hard to find reliable secondary sources such as NYTimes for this content, and the way the article currently is, it's like cherry-picking sources to make the Iran regime happy (possibly done by regime agents). The protection level for the article is also problematic. It currently doesn't meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--ExliranP (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Hi ExliranP. As Jeremy pointed out above, there not much that an ANI thread can do to resolve a content dispute. The place for you to discuss your concerns are on the article's talk page. This will allow other editors familiar with the article's subject matter to weigh in and address them. If that still does not lead to a resolution, you can then follow the other steps of WP:DR. If you have concerns/questions specific to WP:COI or WP:NPOV, then you can also try asking at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. Please be careful, however, to be cognizant of WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:RGW and try really hard to stick to discussing relevant policies/guidelines wherever you decide to bring this up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble AGFing here considering it was only a few weeks ago we had someone else with similar nonsense claims about people editing on behalf of the Iranian regime [182] [183] [184]. It seems that editor was blocked as a sock, and sure enough a case has been opened for this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newcomer1 (see that was already noted above). Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A checkuser found no evidence of socking and I don't think there's enough evidence of socking without CU so I withdraw my above comment and apologise to ExliranP. That said, as Marchjuly has said, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. In addition, unless they have good evidence of someone editing on behalf of the Iranian regime, they need to work in good faith with all other contributors even those who's opinions they disagree with. Also, even if they have good reason to be a SPA, they need to appreciate people are always going to be wary of SPAs in a subject area with such a wide history of socking. If they are able to work well with other contributors, the should be able to easily avoid any concerns. That means as I said, discussion in appropriate places (i.e. not ANI) with everyone to fix any problems in the articles, find appropriate sources etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

about QLED

Hi. I'm a new user of Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia pretty much in that it is very useful and multi-users can create their own information.

And recently I got very confused on the display technology "QLED" after Korean company introduced their new TV product named by QLED. As far as I know, the display technology QLED is obviously emissive type display using quantum dots as light emitter.

But when I search QLED on wikipedia, it automatically redirect to "Light-emitting diode". I think QLED is a topic that needs to have its own page.

We do have obvious definition on QLED and since many normal consumers are having confusion on the non-emissive QD LCD (which is improperly named as QLED recently) vs. emissive QLED So I wanted to give right definition of QLED when searched.

But whenever I try to modify the definition on QLED, it is undid by someone and recently, the page is protected.

So I'm bringing out this issue to administrator's noticeboard to be solved. Your answer would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 힐즈너 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

QLED televisions were launched by Samsung at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2017.[185] At the moment, QLED probably doesn't meet the WP:GNG requirement for its own article, but there is a section about the technology in the article Light-emitting diode.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't belong at ANI, but I've retargeted the redirect at the displays. AFAICT, no one is using quantum dot LEDs commercially for anything else at the moment, so it would seem likely most people looking for QLED are looking for info on the displays not general info on quantum dot LEDs. I've added a link to our article on the LEDs in the display article. The article on the displays is far from perfect, but has existed since 2009. Frankly as much as anything there probably needs to be some merging and moving of info, since at the moment the article on the displays seems to be a mishmash of info general info on quantum-dot technology and specific info on display technology. Care also needs to be taken in dealing with marketing jargon, since it sounds like manufacturers have used quantum dot to refer to a whole host of fairly different tech. Just as (I assume) we cover LED backlit LCDs in our articles on LCDs and OLED displays in separate articles. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it seems my last point is even more on topic. There's actually no commercial QLED display. What Samsung is launching is just another LCD display with "QLED" backlight. I assume their QLEDs in the backlight are at least real QLEDs but I don't know. The article on the displays can be updated to mention this marketing nonsense but that's probably about all that's needed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring around this subject and the user who started this section was briefly blocked for it, so it's sort of relevant to ANI, but not really. I believe the problem is that the content he's trying to add to the light-emitting diode article is better suited for the quantum dot display article, provided that adequate citations can be provided. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Moved from AN) - Inappropriate behaviour.

I have concerns about Wikipedia user Mutt Lunker.

• They are trying to enforce their opinion that "region" only has a political definition, on the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cowal) page.

• They have accused me falsely of being the author of a website.

• They are consistently commenting on my spelling ability.

• They are confrontational.

• They are prewarning me about creating Wikipedia topic pages. That I have not considered creating.

{Springchickensoup (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Springchickensoup (talk • contribs)

Moved, user notified -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 09:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, Mutt Lunker has been trying to raise some genuine issues and has made comments in good faith. There is some background here which it might be helpful for me to describe. Springchickensoup began editing on 19 November and has shown an enthusiasm for editing articles about the Cowal area. There have been some disagreements between Springchickensoup and other editors around geographical and administrative boundaries. Unfortunately attempts by several editors to explain some of the conventions and policy on wikipedia didn't appear to go down well. After first trying to engage with Springchickensoup on their talk page [186], a message was left by Mutt Lunker on the WP:SCOTLAND noticeboard to alert other editors [187]. This was appropriate as Springchickensoup had been prone to persevering with making a raft of changes despite issues sometimes being apparent. Attempts to give Springchickensoup feedback about this was still at times eliciting difficult reactions. On 17 December, with responses now getting shouty I turned to ANI, [188], feeling that there was a lack of progress in efforts to engage this editor. A few editors joined this discussion and provided some additional perspective, but Springchickensoup then used ANI to accuse me of being "confrontational and warring" [189] Again, other editors gave some feedback but a few hours later Springchickensoup had declared that had "had enough of this" and changed the message on their user page [190] to suggest that they had retired. On 10 January Springchickensoup began editing again. I had left messages on Springchickensoup’s talk page: [191], [192], [193], [194], [195] Mutt Lunker also left some messages along similar lines: [196], [197] These did not lead to further discussion on Springchickensoup's talk page, although it looks like last night there was a brief exchange of views between these two editors on the Cowal talk page. I don't see that Mutt Lunker made accusations about Springchickensoup being the author of a website that had been added as a source, but I do see a question being asked about why it had been used. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Enforcing their view that "region" should only be used as a political defination. Even when I provide a link to an online dictionary. they then quibble about the dictionaries definition.

• False accusation. Quote; (Incidentally, I note the squirrel site's home page, and some other pages, have an excessive use of capitalisation of ordinary nouns, simi[lar to your own. Are you the author?) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)]

• Warning off of creating an article, an article I've not thought of creating. Quote; Please do not create an article "Argyll and the Isles region" purely on the basis of this body's remit, (which incidentally is different to the two diocese' of that name). Mutt Lunker

• All the above at: [198] {Springchickensoup (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)}

This is a talk page discussion, the way we resolve issues here; you'd better get used to them and not be so thin-skinned. You seem to view someone questioning your edits on a talk page as the unreasonable enforcing of a view. You are the one that has reinstated the contended text rather than engage in WP:BRD - what seems more like enforcing? That is a misrepresentation of my view re the term "region".

It's a question, not an "accusation". There is nothing wrong with having written the web site but if you have, you should declare this as it probably means there are WP:RS and possibly WP:COI issues (aside from this particular ref's pertinence). You are evidently a new and inexperienced editor, so you may not know this.

Evidently fruitless attempt at humour (regarding the supposed notability of subjects purely on the basis that a phrase appears on the internet). Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So now I'm also "thin-skinned"! It seems a dictionary definition is not a reliable reference! Quote, "Are you the author?", for the record I'm not affiliated with any organisation or website. Was not obviously an attempt at humour to me. If I don't wish to interact with people I find have a didactic and superior manner, that surely is my prerogative.{Springchickensoup (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)}

It has been my experience that the best way to not interact with someone is to not interact with them.[199] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference desk discussion

Just putting a link to this discussion here. The thread should have probably been on ANI to start with, since it is explicitly about user behavior and seeking community sanctions, but since it is already a lengthy winding discussion, this should probably suffice to solicit public comment from those who don't frequent the ref desk. TimothyJosephWood 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the discussion at the refdesk talk page should be closed and redirected to here. ANI is the place to discuss TBANS and behavior issues. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If that's what folks want to do, I don't care. I just didn't see a compelling reason to rehash things. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll inform the folks at the RefDesk that the IBAN discussion should be redirected here, but there is a broader policy discussion underway in that thread, quite separate from what to do about Futurist himself, so I think closing the thread would be inappropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We can suggest that Futurist takes his questions about children and the law here or here. Count Iblis (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to push for any action yet, hopefully Futurist110 will get that many of us find questions like this unacceptable here, and take them elsewhere. Or more helpfully for him, get professional help (this is a never-ending extreme fixation-fear of his, and us answering his questions is not going to help). Discussion is ongoing about hatting questions of this sort, but we may need to re-open this if this behaviour continues, and make a formal request for a topic-ban on this user. There's a lot of discussion as to what rules cover such behaviour, and "refdesk rules" tend to be murky. I'd love if any admins could go check out the situation (yes, it's caused a 'lot of angst, I seem to have inadvertently opened some can of worms when I raised my concerns about Futurist110's questions!), and offer an uninvolved opinion on the issue, just in case we need to take it all the way to a formal topic-ban request at some future point. Eliyohub (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The question cited above was, if a bit convoluted, on-topic and answerable, and people did answer it in interesting ways. Therefore, it could not have been inappropriate. The underlying issue of paternity, if a narrow one, is indeed one of significant legal and cultural importance and could well be explored at a professional level in much greater depth than all the Refdesk threads combined. There is a fundamental tension between the notion of the welfare of the child and innate duties of the father and the notion of being legally immune from other people's intentional bad actions. The odd sequelae, such as a question of regulatory issues involved in mailing body parts, are novel and interesting. The rule of dialectic is that the clash of thesis and antithesis are the engine of invention.

It is impossible to seriously make recommendations for Futurist's personal benefit without first showing you are willing to treat him fairly by Wikipedia procedure. The mere fact that you recognize his username does not make a question more objectionable. The basis of action here is the spy-state ground law that whosoever you see a spycam picture of while picking his nose, wanking, being posted by her boyfriend in revenge porn, whatever, is less of a person. You imagine you have privacy and should be respected but he or she has been understood by you in some way and now you can treat him or her like less of a person. But there is no privacy, only the temporary favor of the spy state, so the snooty airs of those looking down on the person whose fixation is known will last only until someone threatens to reveal their own. It is no way to live. We must first accept Futurist's rights and respect him, then we can try to get him to branch out into other things in a way that we think is more healthy, bearing always in mind that we might be wrong anyway. For every weird injustice in the world there shall be someone sent by God to end it. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTTHERAPY Wikipedia is not the place for anyone to do anything regarding this editors problems mental or physical. How does any of this deal with editing and improving articles? MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The ones suggesting "therapy" for Futurist are the ones pushing for a ban. For myself, I am content to let him post weird questions now and then and see what answers they get without ever trying to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment for any condition we might imagine that individual person might have. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

umm... TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not our place to do anything about his personal issues, just decide how we deal with the questions. Wnt, I don't care who posts lunatic questions like that, they are going to raise concern. But the issue is, he has done it repeatedly. Note my earlier comment that I backed off on requesting sanctions pending attempting alternative ways of dealing with the problem. But no, allowing such questions to be repeatedly posted does raise concerns. I'd like to avoid sanctions if at all possible. But yes, I do have a problem with the refdesk being the place for him to indulge his never-ending troubling fixation. If we can stick to hatting questions of this sort, or better still, if Futurist can take them elsewhere, that would be fine. As I have stated repeatedly, he is not otherwise a problematic editor. If not, than yes, we need to consider asking for a topic ban. I know you disagree, and that's your right. But no, I IMHO can't just "let it go on". Note also that at every point, the suggested sanction (to the degree to which some of us have advocated it) is merely a topic ban, limited to the topics at hand, not kicking Futurist110 off Wikipedia, or even off the Reference Desks. This particular issue of his is one he may need to take elsewhere. Eliyohub (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you define "lunatic questions"? I realize that the Twelve Tables are going out of fashion worldwide, but here it is still unusual to have a ban without a visible policy to explain it. Note that this is an enforcement forum, not a new policy forum - perhaps this discussion should never have been moved here at all? Wnt (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't personally think we should discuss this here, let it stay at the ref desk. The ref desk isn't really part of Wikipedia, none of the normal rules apply there, it is an open forum and does not operate like a real reference does at all. Let what happens at the ref desk stay at the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, exactly this issue was raised, about the odd nature of the Reference Desk compared to the rest of Wikipedia, and the lack of clear rules as to acceptable behaviour thereon. There are Guidelines, but absolutely no policy specific to the desks. So we are sort of stuck when issues like this arise, as to what the rules are, and whose job it is to police them. Given the lack of policy covering the matter, I can't really expect any admin action in a situation like this (barring clear violation of usual wikipedia rules, such as trolling or disruptive editing - we do have a troll or two, and in one of them, admins have blocked him, and included him in WP:LTA), but what do you suggest so that us refdesk contributors can draw up some enforceable rules to deal with our unique situation? If someone proposes a policy as to acceptable refdesk questions and responses, and it is accepted by the usual consensus process, can the admins then enforce it as any other policy? We're sort of stuck with a free-for-all at the moment, and it isn't always working. Eliyohub (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to introduce some sanity a few years ago, and the refdesk regulars weren't having it. They were mad that someone from outside the clubhouse was trying to spoil their good time. It's notoriously difficult to introduce reforms in walled gardens like the ref desk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I came across this via a post at the Help Desk, and...seeing the way things seem to work, I fully realize why I don't go there. As far as drawing up a suggestion, seems a lot like 90%+ is hattable under WP:NOTFORUM, and I suppose if you could find a way to do it that wouldn't run afoul of WP:POINT, there's really nothing anyone could do to sanction you, since being "disruptive" in a way that is 100% in line with policy isn't sanctionable...and isn't actually disruption, even if lots of vocal people don't like it. I'm not sure I care enough to spearhead anything, since it's likely to be a waste of time anyway, but if someone wants to put together a hat-squad to enforce NOTFORUM, I'd volunteer a bit of my time. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I could never understand why Wikipedians so begrudge an occasional joke or off-topic reply in a thread, but then, with no sense of irony at all, start nasty admin witch-hunts that go on for hundreds and hundreds of pages about stuff that could just as readily be ignored, chock full of bogus ethics and bogus wikilawyering that is patently intended to serve some POV or grudge or side agenda. Ordinary healthy forum banter is not a problem on Wikipedia (and even less so on the Refdesks) -- it's the endless game of veiled threats and fine gradations of intimidation that is the problem. It may indeed be that throughout the entire internet, there is only one message, and that is the medium, and the medium is one of concentrated wealth, private ownership, and unrestricted arbitrary power exercised by the few against the many. But Wikipedia should try to defy that trend while the world looks for a better economic and communications system. Wnt (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the "occaisional joke or off topic reply" at all, and indeed have been known to make such posts myself. The thing with the refdesks is that they are a policy-free-zone that isn't consistent with the way the entire rest of Wikipedia works. Frankly, they shouldn't be here as they aren't really part of the encyclopedia at all. There are plenty of other places on the internet that aren't tying to be an encyclopedia what already do exactly what the refdesks do. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You can say that user talk pages aren't really part of an encyclopedia, or Lua modules, or video, or many other things. But what does that mean? If you have an encyclopedia, people are going to want to ask questions, and many will feel that answering those questions can help to grow it. So you can do what I know some hard-core process people would take great pleasure in and outright ban every new user who posts a "how do I do this...?" question in response to one of our legendarily clear articles about math concepts that are full of long unsourced proofs while vigorously resisting the temptation to prove simple examples. And ban them for harassment if they instead go to the editors who wrote those articles and ask. Or ... you can provide a proper place for them to go.

Now properly speaking, Wikimedia should integrate its various projects more closely; it may be the Refdesk would be more satisfactorily pigeonholed as a Wikiversity project. But in practice we know the other branches seem to wither and aren't well integrated because things like transclusion and bluelinking/redlinking don't work between them and even user login transfers are a little iffy, and worse, they all have different rules and different power cliques to go with them and I'm sure you know that being sure to study and obey every last rule is more important than having an educational intent. So a transfer of that magnitude just seems too large and awkward to do. What we know is the content is valuable, educational, within the WMF mission, arises naturally from the routine operation of a working encyclopedia, and can contribute to the development of that encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the WMF mission isn't nearly as relevant as the purpose of Wikipedia, since each project is only intended to fulfill a delineated piece of what the WMF is for, and do that as well as possible. If the purpose is to operate an actual reference desk, that is, to assist editors in finding sources for use in improving the project, or find obscure WP articles on particular subjects, then that is certainly within the scope of WP, and the ref desk is failing fairly badly at it. If however, the purpose is to (...oh...poking around on recent questions...) provide recommendations for skin care products and help users find online manuals for their quad copter, then it's a pretty resounding success, but completely outside the scope of the project.

Regardless, since there seems to be wide spread opposition to any type of sanction, and reforming the reference desk as a whole is 1) not a discussion to be had on ANI, and 2) not a proposal that obviously requires administrator action, we can probably close this, and probably should, and anyone who cares enough to hash it out can have the conversation and the ref desk talk. I happen to not be one of them. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: It seems a small criticism of the refdesk that a passerby asked a vague question about a quadcopter manual. How would we run a refdesk so that no one asks a question you think ought to be beneath it? More to the point, we could take this opportunity to organize a better list of the quadcopter articles we have, ensure that relevant documentation for each is provided, and explain what "Plug and Play" is and what kind of USB cable it is. Mind you, I'm not talking about relaxing notability requirements -- we already have half a dozen of those articles, just do a search. An editor has just pointed out that he can't find what he wants. Either we can be snooty, say you lousy prole, how dare you ask us about some trivial consumer good when all we should really be writing about is the big government death machine kind of drone, or we can listen to him and fix that. So far the Refdesk hasn't really pulled through there - the OP not specifying a model or a clear question didn't help - but it could, and that makes it relevant. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I'm done with the conversation. Literally anything else on the project is a better use of my time. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn

The user User:Flyer22 Reborn has been harassing me for quite a while, accusing me of sockpuppetry with zero evidence for it, harassment for removal of outdated primary sourced material here, and most recently the accusation that I followed flyer onto the Human brain article(which is actually beyond crazy to me....really? I see an article with a high importance rating that obviously seems very bad, and I got to edit it...and all of a sudden I did something wrong) here. This is getting to be problematic, and seems to me like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Furthermore Flyer22's harassment would not be an issue if it were not for his/her/it's attitude and demeanor, which is quite disturbing. Petergstrom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please not that I notified Flyer here, and he/she/it removed it. The proper procedure has been followed.Petergstrom (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Update. This edit demonstrates an edit based solely of vindictive anger...why remove well sourced material that was missing from this article. The content is necessary and relevant function of the brain, and for no reason it was removed. No doubt some silly claim will be thrown of POV pushing

You are a reckless, POV-pushing editor.

Petergstrom (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You should both use the article's talk page, for a start. El_C 22:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two editors agreed that the function section was terrible, and she just flat out ignored that. That is actually pretty good evidence of vindictive harassment behaviorPetergstrom (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happened to spot the ongoing edit war at human brain during change patrol, and a request for the page to be protected is pending. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

From my standpoint, it looks like a content dispute that became heated. One article talk page at a time: present your positions on the material. Myself, I'm willing to offer my opinion. El_C 22:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes the content dispute is relevant, but what I am tying to solve here is the history of harassment.Petergstrom (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it rising to that level. You carry the burden of proof to display a history of harassment. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And, more or less as per WP:BURDEN, it is your obligation and no one else's to provide the evidence to support your contentions. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's accusations of harassment are unfounded. After indicating that Petergstrom is a sock because his edits are very similar to a previous editor, I left the matter alone because I do not yet have enough evidence to prove my case. As many editors on this site know, I do not make a sock accusation unless I am certain that the editor is a sock. And I'm usually correct about sock matters. After that, Petergstrom started popping up at articles that I significantly edit. The first one was the Psychopathy article, where Petergstrom engaged in reckless removals and falsely asserted that the topic is WP:Fringe. See here and keep scrolling down for what I mean. His fighting with Penbat was ridiculous, and Literaturegeek had to come in to point out how Petergstrom was wrong. After that, Petergstrom popped up at the Vegetarianism article, another article that I significantly edit, and he started making problematic edits to that article as well. He had also made a very poor edit to the Veganism article, which is yet another article that I edit. See here. It took Alexbrn weighing in on the matter. After that, Petergstrom showed up at the Insomnia article. While I do not heavily edit the Insomnia article, it is on my watchlist and I saw that Petergstrom has made reckless edits there, removing important material. I noted the WP:Preserve policy to him. See here. He indicated that he would continue to violate that policy. Jytdog helped with what Petergstrom recklessly removed. In that same discussion, I noted that I am working on the Human brain article, despite thinking to myself that Petergstrom might follow me to that article and edit recklessly there as well. And sure enough, he did. So I left a note on his talk page about WP:Hounding, stating that I would bring the matter here to WP:ANI if he continued to follow me. That's when he started making silly claims about how no one here cares about me, that I'm going crazy, and that he would bring the matter to WP:ANI too. See here. And so here we are.

Petergstrom has repeatedly made asinine edits to our medical articles, as currently seen on his talk page, and I do not believe he understands our sourcing policies well enough to be editing at all. Like Alexbrn stated, there are WP:Competence issues regarding this editor.

On a side note: I have dealt with many stalkers before, and some have been dealt with here at WP:ANI. So I know what I am talking about when it comes to stalking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn overestimates her importance. Firstly, the psychopathy edits were justified, and many stand even now. The removal of primary material, duplicated content and the things still stands. Secondly, the veganism and vegetarian article edits were not poor, in fact we came to a conclusion that inconsistent policies were being applied, probably driven by WP:ADVOCACY. Third, the insomnia edits were justified, and Jytdog did not add any of the poor material back-material removed from the pathophysiology section, such as science daily, and multi decade old partially relevant primary studies. He added menstrual cycle risk factors as a cause. Lastly, Flyer22 overestimates his/her/it's importance. Just because some people edit similar articles, it does not indicate stalking or harassment. His/Her/Its behavior indicates stalking and harassment. Quite frankly the whole thing seems really ridiculous to me. The pure mental gymnastic being don't on Flyer22's part. It is like Flyer is the center of the whole dang universe. To the point where a multi week old remark made by Flyer, a remark which I barely skimmed over, is believed by flyer to be influencing heavily my editing now. It is just plain not true. A top importance article, on a wikiproject that I frequently edit, that is low quality is something I want to edit, regardless of who edits it. Petergstrom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Overestimates my importance? Nah, I don't think so. But if anyone thoroughly examines what I've pointed to regarding you, they should see that you continuously engage reckless behavior, especially by disregarding the WP:Preserve policy. It's easy to see that you take removal of primary sources to the extreme. You also edit in ways that are clearly POV-motivated. Your WP:Edit warring and trying to WP:OWN articles is also tiresome. There is no advocacy going on at the Vegetarianism and Veganism articles, unless it's your advocacy. The Veganism article was mostly written by SlimVirgin, and she knows what she's doing. As for following me, do not insult my or others' intelligence by stating that you are randomly appearing at articles that I significantly edit. We both know that it's not true. The Human brain matter was certainly no coincidence. You were bitter that I highlighted your poor editing. You clearly stalked me to the Human brain article.

So I am stating it right now: If I see you pop up at yet another article that I significantly edit (like the Vagina article, for example), I will be starting a thread here specifically about your WP:Hounding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And given how we feel about each other, there is no logical reason for you to show up and start editing an article that I told you that am I working on. Unless, of course, that reason is to cause me distress (which WP:Hounding forbids). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me some talk page discussion where changes are explained, or when they are not. El_C 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing? That's the thing about posting here (if you're lucky enough to get someone to listen), you have to do the legwork, or it doesn't work for neither of you. El_C 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I pointed to talk page discussions above. In the Psychopathy discussions, for example, there are invalid claims of WP:Fringe. In the Vegetarianism discussion, there is indication that Petergstrom does not have a good grasp on sourcing issues. In that discussion, I also pointed to where he had misrepresented a source at the Veganism article. At the Insomnia talk page, I pointed out that he had recklessly removed relevant material. Jytdog restored some of it with better sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented at Talk:Psychopathy, Talk:Vegetarianism and Talk:Human brain. El_C 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstom, stop calling Flyer22 "he/she/it". I shouldn't have to explain why calling a person "it" is demeaning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can see, he only did that in the first post, and has since then been correctly referring to her as "she". John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still quite inappropriate and ideally would be struck. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was done in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit. Some of these were additions to existing edits, but I don't care that much. Changing your post so that it adds "it" as a pronoun to refer to someone is pretty obnoxious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that that is needlessly inflammatory. If there's doubt, use s/he. El_C 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer they. It's more formal when in doubt. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows users to report their gender in their preferences. A editor's gender is available by using (or simply checking in preview) the {{gender}} template and is shown on hover with Navigastion Popups. The fact that Flyer22 has declared her gendrer this way and mentions it in her user space ("I am female and was born in Florida.") makes Petergstrom's "he/she/it" jab that much more grating. Rebbing 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, they. You ask for evidence of harassment, and I gave it in the first post, if that is not sufficient "legwork" I am compiling more. The psychopathy discussion of fringe, was not supported by recent secondary sources, so yes it was an incorrect claim. The edits, however, were good. The removal of outdated crappy sources, and duplicates, were justified and still stand today. The veganism article, nothing was misrepresented. That would imply malicious and intentionally manipulating something to support a point-which was not done. I used "vegan population" instead of "vegan population in hong kong and india"(or some region like that). The rest of the dozens of edits were totally justified and still stand. The insomnia article is a different matter. Jytdog added NOTHING back with better sourcing, he wrote something COMPLETELY NEW. Not in the pathophysiology section, where I removed piles of garbage-in the CAUSE section, where he added a sentence that menopause may be associated with insomnia. Now onto the WP:OWN. If Flyers statement above on the vagina wikipedia page is anything, it is evidence of s/he attempting to WP:OWN a page. Flyer22 still has this mentality that everything I do is dictated by her actions-that is plain wrong. S/he needs to understand, that his/her impact on my life in nearly zero. Until today, I barely gave him/her a thought(except for the sock puppet accusation, which was quite rude). The bottomline is, that the following

1. sock puppetry accusations-WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
2. unnecessary removal-Unnecessary to remove a multi decade old, primary source? WP:MEDRS
3. incredibly self centered behavior-Borderline fanaticism, WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN
4. removal of relevant well sourced material-Vindictive behavior, WP:CIVIL

Are behaviors that don't seem to follow wiki policy on behavior. Together the accusations constitute some form of harassment, Petergstrom (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only NPA mention is 1st link, which doesn't work for me. El_C 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with you removing material is that you never keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind. Often, what you remove can be easily supported by tertiary and/or secondary sources. When you remove content like that, valuable content is lost. It is not the usual case that editors go searching through an article's edit history to see what was removed. Therefore, valuable content is commonly lost with removals like yours. I explained this to you at the Insomnia talk page.

You did misrepresent data at the Veganism article. Whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, I explained how you did so at the Vegetarianism talk page.

I am not trying to WP:OWN any articles. I am trying to keep you from editing them recklessly. And I do not like to be followed to articles by editors who currently have a tempestuous relationship with me. See the distress part of WP:Hounding. I wanted to edit the Human brain article in peace. It is clearly a main article that I am focusing on. And yet you somehow thought it would be good to focus on it too? It makes no sense for you to pop up at the Vagina article either, especially since that article is put together quite well and will be nominated for WP:GA status soon enough. The only reason you would have for popping up at that article is because I pointed it out above and made it clear to you that I would not tolerate you following me to articles I am significantly working on.

I wish that I didn't have to continuously deal with people stalking me, especially after they've felt disgruntled because of some argument. But it is something I often have to deal with because of my stance on following rules like WP:NPOV accurately, and because the articles I edit tend to be contentious, and because I have busted so many socks. Yes, quite a few socks stalk me, whether as IPs or as new accounts. This is not paranoia on my part, as such stalkers or socks tend to claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Editor Interaction Analyser is very useful here. Here you can see that the two editors have mutually edited 29 articles, and in practically all - 26 - cases Flyer22 Reborn has edited the article first. These include some very obscure articles. I can only assume from this data that Petergstrom (who let's not forget has only 1,495 articlespace edits in total) is indeed stalking Flyer22 Reborn to articles she has edited, and this needs to stop - NOW. Therefore (a) I suggest a one-way interaction ban (i.e. that Petergstrom cannot edit articles that Flyer22 Reborn has edited, including talk pages), and (b) Petergstrom may be subject to immediate blocking by any administrator if he should again follow her to an unrelated article. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet legwork. I'm referring to Black Kite, with whom I tend to agree. 26 of 29 is, indeed, quite a disconcerting ratio(!). El_C 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is just ridiculous. I have edited hundreds of articles in neuroscience, psychology, and popular media. I like the walking dead. I like game of thrones. I'm interested in psychology, and neuroscience-particularly in the influence that prenatal hormones has on gendered behavior. I have edited many many articles in neuroscience and psychiatry area, particularly mood disorders, monoamines, and there is bound to be overlap, given the extent to which she edits. The fact that we have edited the same 29 articles(many of which he/she made only one or two edits a long time ago, that I would not have known about, and don't care about) does not indicate stalking. The fact that he/she has been on WP for years before me is also an explanation. An editor, who hangs out around a lot of the science/social science articles, and over a couple of years has made over a hundred thousand edits, is bound to have overlap with an editor with 1400 edits highly focused on the science/social science section. Petergstrom (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• That is indeed a possibility (if it had not been, an administrator may have blocked you already). I am simply pointing out that following Flyer22 Reborn to any further pages that you have not previously edited may be looked upon very dimly indeed. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) I kind of have to agree with Petergstrom about the nature of the "interactions" here. It looks to me at least 13 of the articles listed are ones where the time difference between the two editors is over a year. If he were really stalking Flyer22Reborn, it would be really easy to spend a lot less work checking her edit history and making staling edits to articles she had edited more recently. Having said that, Petergstrom, you've already been advised about using "he/she" and told that Flyer is, in fact, a female. Try not to fall into the same problem so frequently, OK? I imagine Lassie got really fed up with that blasted Timmy brat for falling in the well as often as he apparently did, too, and repeating that mistake doesn't help your cause at all. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the edits were months or years ago and then you show up recently, that can make sense. The question, then, is how closely to the actual edits overlap. El_C 01:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I stalking Jytdog (talk · contribs) here? Perhaps I am notoriously stalking Doc James (talk · contribs) too? If this tool is at all EVEN AN INDICATOR of harassment behavior, then I have literally stalked every prominent WP editor in the sciences area of WP, to an even more severe extent than my terribly atrocious stalking of flyer22 reborn. Ridiculous. I am really disappointed in WP right now. If this is what passes as "legwork".....this is sad. If you take note of this, and don't even comment on the actual evidence I presented, I have no idea what this board is forPetergstrom (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We are still investigating. Best keep it relaxed as you can and avoid characterizations like "poor poor flyer22 reborn." El_C 01:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Petergstrom is showing up to articles that I significantly edit as well. Does the combination of editing the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles really seem like a coincidence? The focus on these articles came after my objections to Petergstrom's editing. And this is especially the case for the Human brain article. And now Petergstrom is citing me not wanting him to follow me to articles, including the Vagina article, as some indication of WP:OWN. I've noted above the issues with following an editor you have a tempestuous relationship with to articles. And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that I've been through this many times.

If Petergstrom shows up at more articles I significantly edit (like the Vagina article), including articles that I have brought to WP:GA status, will that be a coincidence too? I think not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How soon after the dispute started picking up momentum did he show up at those articles? El_C 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

He waits a bit, like a week or two or so. I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me. But the following is clear to me either way. After I addressed him on his talk page about editing with a previous account, I knew that it would not be long before he started showing up to articles I have a significant interest in. After I pointed out that I was working on the Human brain article, I knew it would not be long before he started editing it. The predictability was easy because I've been through this type of thing countless times before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful about basing conclusions about this editor's conduct upon what you have experienced with entirely different persons. Unless the person you suspect Petergstrom of being a sock of is one of those stalkers, your previous experiences really have no useful predictive power for this individual, and it's unfair to saddle him with a presumption of bad faith on that basis alone.

That said, there's some pretty compelling evidence here, considering his showing up at articles you have edited consistently after you have. But it's still all a little circumstantial; all of the articles I've seen mentioned here are pretty major articles and the fact that you edited them first could simply be a product of you having been on the project much longer. I come from a biopsychology background myself, for example and have edited most of those articles myself, if memory serves. So we need to parse this a little more cleanly. You say that Petergstrom has shown up on more than one occasion at certain articles about a week or two after engaging with you elsewhere. How many of these instances involve him undoing your work or otherwise putting himself in a position to engage with you directly, and has there even been a time where he was doing so on multiple articles concurrently? I'm highly suspicious here and I'm looking for the smoking gun that will let me support a 1-way IBAN, but I just need a little more. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Are you actually taking Flyer22's allegations(with no actual evidence) seriously, while blatantly ignoring the harassment she has posed, with her sock puppet allegation, and now this allegation? A user, with 240,000 edits, in the english wiki of 2 million articles, is going to have edited some major pages before a newer editor with 1400 edits, concentrated in the biopsychology, neuroscience, health area etc etc. I don't know how many times I have to say this:'I do not care about what flyer22 edits, or what she thinks, but I do care about being harassed. The only time where I have given her a second of thought, is due to her ridiculous allegations, which quite frankly, are annoying as hell. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions.Petergstrom (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think anyone questions necessarily the problematic nature of some of the more recent edits, Flyer22Reborn, just indicating that some of the "interactions" with over a year lag time between them might not necessarily count for much. And I think that if there were broadened interactions hereafter, that would definitely be very credible evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this statement "And, yes, Petergstrom has been following Jytdog and Doc James too. But I think he's been following them more so to learn and to get their approval." is an attempt at being obnoxious, and not a reflection of your own thought process-something that would be very, very, very disturbing. The edits to the human brain article occurred after I went to the article in hopes of finding a quality, complete section, discussing the functions of the brain. I hoped to find the immediate functions, as well as from an evolutionary perspective. Instead I found the current sad section. The edits to the vegan and vegetarian articles were both after googling them to fact check a meme I was(no kidding) curious about. This is really getting to a ridiculous point. Flyer22 needs to reign in her behavior, which I clearly demonstrated above violates multiple wiki policies. Petergstrom (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, speaking strictly for myself, I don't find much obnoxious in the comment at all. It would certainly be not unreasonable for a comparatively new editor (you've been here since October?) to try to edit in such a way as to generate negative reaction if such was required from senior editors. Kind of an informal "mentoring," maybe. There might be better ways to do it, admittedly, but I think I have seen a few other editors here do the same sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I began editing the vegan article on the 16th of january, long after the (regrettable) first encounter I had with Flyer22 on the psychopathy article at the beginning of december, after joining in late october, after spending most of november hanging around the PED/Adaptogen/MDD/CFS area. Petergstrom (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanations are the similar to others claiming that they weren't stalking. In a short of amount of time, you showed up at the Psychopathy, Vegetarianism, Veganism and Human brain articles. No matter what you state, that is not a coincidence. And if you show up at more, I will have even more evidence of your stalking. As for my supposed violations, you do not understand the rules well; so I don't put much stock into your assertions of having violated the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You're only three days apart with the first one though; as for the second, that was quite a bit of (seemingly-pertinent) content you removed with your first edit... El_C 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, your reply is meant for Petergstrom, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you cant accept the fact that psychopathy, edits, along with ASPD edits were due to the fact that I am interested in psychiatry(as evidenced by my hundreds of edits in that area), and that the veganism/vegetarian edits(to the cardiovascular effects of the diets nonetheless...hmmmmm what does that sound like? Stalking or perhaps the editing of an editor interested in that area of science....hmmmmm) were due to the finding of very biased statements of benefits, then I would have doubts about your WP:COMPETENCE, in particular the way you place such an importance of yourself in other peoples decision making----you have to understand that you aren't that important. I literally never gave you a second thought, after skimming over whatever you said to me. Petergstrom (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of this thread is "Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn", and yet, so far, what this thread shows is stalking by you. It has yet to show that I have been stalking or harassing you. So your understanding of the WP:Competence essay is also flawed. Follow me to more articles I am working on, and there will be a thread here on you in the future. Mostly likely, the near future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me refer both of you to WP:DR, because I would do it. I am that bleeping crazy! El_C 02:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C, conflict resolution relies on the flexibility of the persons involved in the conflict-if Flyer22's self importance refuses to be flexible, no amount of conflict resolution would help. Petergstrom (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's fast becoming your only hope. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No it has not shown any "stalking by me", it has shown nothing. I have, however, demonstrated the violating of multiple wiki policies by you. Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a more in depth example. Sepi333 and I edit the same obscure pages-due to overlapping interests, such as Dopaminergic pathways, motivation, Reward system etc etc. However, given that he has a healthy ego, he understands that this is not "stalking", but is rather an overlap of interests. However, he does throw out accusations of sock puppetry ("because he is frequently right" hurr durr durr), or stalking, because he has a healthy sense of ego. Petergstrom (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this has to do with it fast becoming your only hope. You've been repeatedly asked to indent correctly here. El_C 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread. Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here. Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know how to feel...if anyone wants to know what its like to be laughing, disgusted and annoyed at the same time...hmu. Let's break this down

• Since it's clear that you intend to keep following me to articles I am working on, we will see just what editors state in that future WP:ANI thread.

• Clear from what? Clear from the mental gymnastics done by you, and your grandiose ego that just needs a stalker to feel good?

• Your WP:ANI thread is a bust.

• I wasn't aware it was over, but if it is, it seems that you might stop harassing me now

• And as for self-importance, nowhere do I assert my importance here.

• You are not wrong, you don't explicitly say it. However your behavior, does as I have pointed out many times.

• Others have stated that I am important to this site, and I could point to diff-links showing that. I do not let such compliments go to my head. Yes, I have contributed to many important areas on this site. Yes, many Wikipedians feel that I'm important to this site, as indicated by past comments on my talk page and emails. I accept that. You should too.

• This is not the self importance I am talking about. You are overestimating your impact on others. Way. Too. Much.

• I think he waits in order to divert attention from having followed me

• This screams to me the words "delusional", "obsessive", "paranoid", "grandiose". If you think anyone actually cares THAT much about you, your edits, and what you think of them, that is disturbing. No after I first interacted with you, I did not spend 6 hours straight thinking about you, reading your edit history, compiling a profile, in my room in my basement with tin foil over the windows, and a triple padlocked steel door. No, I did not spend the next week sitting in that room, with a whiteboard, and yarn linking edits and wikipages, thinking about the most effective strategy for subverting, and obfuscating. I did not set up thousands of dollars of computers, calculating my sinister plot, waiting to strike-waiting for the moment when....wait for it....I COULD DISRUPT SOME RANDOM EDITORS WIKIEDITING *maniacal laughter ensues*. Hell, I didn't even give you a second thought after skimming over whatever it was you wrote.Petergstrom (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet more nonsense and personal attacks from you. Stating that you should accept that others find me important to this site is because of your constant need to state how unimportant you find me to be. Your talk page response about the hounding matter and your above commentary shows just how obsessed you are with stating how unimportant I supposedly am. And such comments could be categorized as coming from a place of insecurity or inferiority regarding your own edits. Some might even state that they come from a place of jealousy. And if they understand psychology like I do, they just might be right. Your comments also indicate that you are indeed the past editor I believe you to be. No matter. I've stated what I need to state. You have been warned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment (both of which Flyer22 has been a victim of) of editors doesn't take hours to plan, it takes minutes. Less if you've done it before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It cannot be that easy to do what you do. All I want, is for your behavior to stop. For your reckless accusations to stop. For you to understand that, no, I don't care about you, BUT I DO CARE ABOUT BEING HARASSED.' Petergstrom (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is not what she indicated when she said "he waits in order to diver attention from having followed me". The belief that someone, a troll nonetheless, would take a week to avoid detection in their trolling, is crazy.Petergstrom (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can quite emphatically state that that notion is not "crazy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So you are telling me, NeilN, that you have met people...real human beings...that seriously have nothing better in their lives to do, than to single out a random editor of wikipedia pages, and to make disruptive edits to the pages, but doing so very slowly, and very secretively in an attempt to troll/stalk/harass them. That is sad. I enjoy editing wikipedia. I enjoy editing pages I have interest in. My edit history is evidence that I am here to edit, and until today, none of my editing was AT ALL influenced by Flyer22. However, her accusations of me being a sockpupper(unsubstantiated, which I have brought up many times, but has been ignored) as well as the unsubstantiated claims that I follow Flyer to articles, are annoying, and need to stop. If the admins agree that accusations of sock puppetry and harassment by flyer are ok, then until the annoyance outweighs the good of WP, I can just ignore it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have witnessed the behavior you're describing more than once. I've even seen someone put significant effort into making a credible back-story so he could say wide-eyed: "But I'm obviously not a troll! Just look at my {comments,posts,edits}! I can't believe anyone would actually have nothing better to do with his life than to scheme against someone on the Internet!" Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing:, Really?? this was just a "backstory", so that I could get to my real intent of trolling? I read hundreds of papers so that I could "troll"? Really??? Really???? I cant even believe wikipedia right now. This is actually one of the saddest things...a website I had so much respect for....Really???? Really? There is not a a single SHRED, of evidence that suggests I give two damns about what Flyer edits or thinks. But I give real, tangible, credible evidence of harassment and it gets blown off? Really? I can't even express who ridiculous the whole thing is getting.Petergstrom (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You misread my comment: I did not say you were a troll or that your contribution history was a sham. I merely voiced my observation—in rebuttal to your skepticism—that many have gone to extraordinary lengths to exact petty revenge. Please stifle your outrage; it is not adding any light to this situation. Rebbing 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As can I. It doesn't even take any effort: one could flip through an editor's week-old contributions, watchlist an article with the intent of editing it the next time it pops up, or bookmark the page in a date folder. Trolls are anything but lazy. Rebbing 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an admin, although I've played with one on tv. One of the most main points between Wikipedia editors is to help make everyone's experience enjoyable, and not to try to make it less enjoyable. The recent edit, screaming the words, is pretty offensive, and probably should be walked back. Flyer22 Reborn is important to the site, and in some areas, very important. This is fact, not her boasting. So please, Petergrstrom, maybe rethink the pressure of defending your case if it goes into name calling to that extent. Wikipedia is a polite place, although I have been impolite to a couple of grandiose self-important complete azzwipe editors fine gentlemen of the realm. Let's make everyone's experience here a little better and wind-down some of this stuff before it flips into the really nasty get-up-and-go. Peace, love, and singing stuff about cats or sunrise's or something. Randy Kryn 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well in one of my first encounters with a fine gentle(wo)man of the realm, I had to bold the point because nobody seemed to get it.Petergstrom (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Best we tone down the accusatory language and just see what can be worked out one article talk page at a time. El_C 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the behaviour of either editor here has been stellar in any sense of the word. The "policy violations" are numerous on both sides; the multiple accusations of sockpuppetry but no diffs (not here at least) to link Petergstrom to any other editor by Flyer22reborn (ASPERSIONS) and the near-constant accusations of quite serious behavioural (not bad behaviour, but, the issues of self-aggrandizement, delusions, etc) problems from Petergstrom (NPA, CIVIL). This is cause enough for civility blocks to be handed out, though if I'm being direct, I am far more concerned with the near abusive nature of some of Peter's comments than I am with Flyer's sockpuppetry accusations. No more "you're mental" style comments, Peter, you've made quite enough of them. I am mildly surprised you haven't received at least a warning for them. The stalking claims, Flyer, are both difficult to prove and evidence is circumstantial at best; Peter makes a good point regarding the editor interaction anaylzer, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. You need to look at the pages concerned, the times of editing, a log of the page history, and individual edits themselves. The individual edit themselves are the best indicator for stalking because they alone form the basis of a pattern. The return claims of harassment by Peter are relatively unsubstantiated beyond referring to the concurrent stalking claim by Flyer. Other than that, I see zero harassment going in the direction of Peter. I want her behavior to be reigned in, so I can go back to making helpful contributions, there is a simple solution for this, just go do something productive and forget Flyer22 until or unless further issues arise. This thread is rapidly generating more heat than light. There is, however, no simple resolution for any competency issues that may exist and I profer no opinion on that point because ·I have limited competency myself on the topic areas of medicine, the human body and its functions, and psychology. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to point out that Flyer22 Reborn has indeed been very accurate in their detection of sockpuppetry. No one is perfect, of course, but Flyer22 has an extremely good batting average. I think that they perhaps might have waited to make an accusation until they had more evidence, but, given their record, their suspicions should afforded some weight, given the behavior of Petergstrom as described in this thread, especially the Editor Interaction Analyser data pointed out by Black Kite. [200] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So I've read above Beyond My Ken. My personal stance on an issue such as this is; if you don't have evidence, don't make accusations. I personally don't afford 'suspicions' any weight without a reason to do so. That reason doesn't have to be proof of sockpuppetry per se, but, it does have to be something more than a flat accusation. I agree, however, on the topic of Peter's behaviour being uncollaborative and uncivil. As for the EIA, as I said above, it alone is evidence of jack diddly squat. If a new editor and an old editor hold similar interests and edit within the same topic area they will overlap. Yes, there is a significant amount of overlap and yes, Flyer has been first to edit 26/29 pages. Of those however only 10 have less than one months time separating her and his edit, and of those all three of the pages he was first to edit are included; Gender inequality, gender inequality in the U.S. and Antisocial personality disorder. Now, basically that means that he's followed her to 7 out of 10 pages, and she's followed him to the other 3 - note; I do not mean followed as in stalked, but, as in came there after. So either he's seeking out pages she hasn't edited in months by going through her contributions history, or, alternatively, he's just happened across them at a later date. I'm going to AGF and say he's not sitting around wading through Flyer's contributions for hours just to make her miserable. If this is actually what's happening, then that's simply pitiful ... I have other adjectives for it as well, but, NPA/CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum; I should add, that the EIA is useful in stalking/hounding cases for raising red flags and directing a person where to look and perhaps identify obvious patterns. In this instance, however, I've found nothing unusual even outside of the medicine/human anatomy/human pyschology topic areas. I should also add that this has also come to my mind as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, without addressing everything that you have stated since I feel that I have stated enough in this thread (both above and below), I am taking the time to note that it is usually the case that I do have evidence, but it may be that the evidence is not strong enough. WP:CheckUser wouldn't work in this case since the previous account is stale. It is not unusual for me to wait until I have more evidence. Like many editors have done, including administrators, I gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. When he denied it and started focusing on my block log (mischaracterizing it), I moved on, knowing full well that he would likely start to appear at articles that I significantly edit because of that sockpuppet inquiry on his talk page. I know that you likely feel that I should not have addressed the sock matter at all, but there have been cases where addressing a sock about his or her previous account resulted in the sock acknowledging that they are a sock. This includes cases I've been involved in. And I reiterate that I have been stalked a number of times before, and the stalking patterns are generally the same. They are the same so often that I currently make it clear on my user page that I won't even list my WP:GAs and WP:FAs there on my user page. When it comes to the Gender inequality and Antisocial personality disorder articles, I edited those first, as seen here and here. I did not significantly edit them, but they remained on my watchlist. I know that you state that you do not see a stalking pattern, and I accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To shorten that - you had no evidence, you accused someone of being a sock without evidence, you accused them of stalking despite the fact they have a fairly small defined area of editing which overlaps yours (which could be seen *at the time* you accused them of being a sock) and think that because they eventually show up at an article (within their area of editing) you edited sometime in the past its evidence they are a sock/stalking you? This is not a case of 'not having enough evidence' this is a case of you being so far from being in possession of anything resembling evidence that its laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is an inaccurate characterization, for reasons I and others in this thread have made clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... EIA must have gotten those two wrong in this case. I wonder why it lists Petergstrom as the first editor when it obviously has you editing it years ago... probably the timeline of the latest edits but it's still wrong. My apologies there Flyer22 Reborn, it would have done me well to dig that bit deeper. I looked at the thread on Peter's page where you; gave Petergstrom a chance to acknowledge that he has edited Wikipedia under a different account. I'm not going to harp on this because I've never had wikistalkers that harrassed me or been in any particularly difficult disputes, but, your approach is ... not one I'd recommend to anyone. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment above: many people who edit Wikipedia for a long time develop a nose for sockpuppetry. Some have OK noses, some have good noses, and some have very good noses. Flyer22's nose for sockpuppetry happens to be very, very good. That doesn't mean that she is correct in this case - everyone is human, everyone makes mistakes - but it does mean that admins should (and some do) pay some attention when she voices a suspicion. I'd very much like to see the CU policy loosened up somewhat, so that editors with a good track record regarding sniffing out socks are given enough credence to allow a CU scan to be done (even without a named puppetmaster) without the "no fishing expeditions" rule being trotted out. If the editor starts being wrong a lot, that credence can be lost, but in the meantime we'll have retired some socks. Further, I think an exception should be made for CUing editors who exhibit general sock-like behavior, something that many users can detect. All of that can be done totally within WMF policies - it's the en.wiki community which has chosen to fetter CUs, not the Foundation, which is ironic since, as the biggest and most read of all the WMF encyclopedias, we're the one which needs the tools to crack down on socking, while other wikis are the ones with the more liberal rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe summarizing this will help. I come to the board, asking for help, due to harassment from Flyer22 Reborn. I notified her on her talk page, and provided evidence. I used he/she/it, and was reprimanded. She responded with allegations that I have been maliciously planning, and subverting attention in order to troll her. I state that that is ridiculously self centered, paranoid, and ridiculous. She accuses me of following her to the following articles

• Veganism
• Vegetarianism
• Psychopathy
• Insomnia

These articles receive thousands of views a day, and are relevant in the health and neuroscience area, that I have been editing significantly in since I started. We first encountered each other in the psychopathy article talk page-I removed poorly sourced material, and then asked about changing the article to reflect its fringe status, however I realized I did not have a quality secondary source, and that it would be OR, so I backed off. I continued to edit in areas related to neuroscience, psychology, etc etc. For some reason, Flyer22 accuses me of sock puppetry, a serious, rude and unsubstantiated claim. I move on. In my editing of fibromyalgia, the creation of functional somatic syndrome page, and edits to he biology of depression, I came across a link to insomnia. I had quite a bit of research, so I checked the insomnia page, and saw that the pathophysiology section was poorly outdated. I updated it. I saw something claiming major benefits from vegetarian diets, so I went to check if it was true, on the WP article I saw some pretty crazy claims too. So I did some research, found secondary sources, published recently in quality journals, and updated the article to reflect current consensus. While browsing in neuroscience, I find the human brain page to be terribly deficient in the "functions" section. I edit it. And then I get accused of following Flyer22 to articles. Her behavioral pattern of seeing malicious intent in everyday goings on is ridiculous, and even more so is the audacity she has to threaten someone with it. What is even worse, is that instead of finding an objective admin board, objective like I experienced with the fantastic editors(mostly) in the medicine section, I find Dark Kite showing "fantastic legwork", showing how Flyer22, with 240,000 edits, and I with 1500 overlap on some articles in my region of interest. Woah. Crazy? Not really. It is not even INDICATIVE of me giving two damns about what she edits(which I demonstrated by showing my overlap with other prolific editors in that area). However, nobody takes seriously the harassment posed by her, but they do take seriously her crazy claims, not based in reality. Summarized.Petergstrom (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time the OP familiarize himself with the First Rule of Holes? John from Idegon (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Newcomer User:Soli58 has arrived on the scene (Contribs). El_C 04:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

{@El C: So is that it? Is this report done? So the harassment by Flyer22 I should just ignore? That can be done. And is there a consensus about Flyer22's allegations(with zero evidence)?Petergstrom (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You failed to respond when I asked you about your non-working claimed-NPA link — and that question remains unanswered. No, you've failed to establish a clear pattern of harassment to my satisfaction. El_C 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god. I thought that it didn't work as in it was insufficient evidence! All this time??? Oh my god. I will fix it. Wow.Petergstrom (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

here it should work now. Now what about the counter allegations?Petergstrom (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? Asking if you're a sock? It's not the most goodfaith-assuming question, but I don't know if that rises to that level. El_C 05:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• i've been pinged a few times and have been thinking. Thoughts:
  • if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). and they were warned about edit warning almost right of the gate.
  • I encountered Petergstrom first at articles about health (their articles in that arena have been about neuro and psych topics) and their edits on each article have been extensive (big flurries of rewriting) and generally poor in sourcing and summarizing. Clearly has a strong interest in neuro/psych so I (and others) put a bunch of time into trying to teach them how to edit correctly on health topics... and at the rate they were editing this was essential. (you can see the dialogue in this old version of their talk page) Their initial responses were dismissive like this:: The content was sourced!! What are you talking about? and this: I did read it. I am not ignoring it, the sources are totally valid, stop reverting the edits.. And kept insisting that their extensive use of old/primary sources was fine. (diff, diff) They finally kinda sorta got it. Kinda. I have remained cautiously hopeful they would turn out to be solid members of the community.
  • Around that time they did some aggressive and badly reasoned editing at Performance-enhancing substance as you can see from its history -- aggressive reverts. There was an equally aggressive advocate on the other side who self-destructed finally. I happened to agree (mostly) with the direction Petergstrom wanted the article to go, but the behavior and reasoning were bad and aggressive (you can see that on the article talk page too) and got them their first block for edit warring.
  • their editing at MDMA and its talk page was so aggressive and unreasonable that I brought them to EWN, leading to a block: case is here. If you review their comments in that case, you can see that they misrepresented their own edits (and behavior) at that board, which was doubly troubling.
  • as is evident in the history of the Chronic pain article here, as recently as a couple of days ago they added a slew of COPYVIO content that had to be revdelled.

And their aggressive effort to prosecute this ANI and ignoring of feedback they are getting, is par for their WP history to date, and not promising. I am not too hopeful about their long term prospects to be productive. Which is what led me to post here.

All that said, I can't support Flyer's claim of stalking. Petergstrom has been editing religion and neuro/psych pretty consistently from the beginning and edits to the Brain article do not seem stalkerish to me.

Flyer tends to be accurate about socking but i have no real comments on that issue other than my initial one above, and that based on their behavior i wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Petergstrom fwiw I recommend you walk away from this ANI case - you are not going to get the satisfaction you want - and instead concentrate on building high quality content (great MEDRS sources, summarized and not copied, accurately) and working better with others. Your hands are way too dirty for this case to get any traction. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea sounds fine to me. I will ignore Flyer22 for now.Petergstrom (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. please keep in mind the " and working better with others" part of what i wrote :) Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently focusing on patrolling and editing article content, and am no longer interested in this thread, but I wanted to go ahead and note that I did not state that Petergstrom followed me to the Insomnia article, which is an article I had only edited a few times. I mentioned the Insomnia article to explain why I view Petergstrom's style of editing to be problematic and my belief that he followed me to the Human brain article. I specifically mentioned the Human brain article on the Insomnia talk page when criticizing Petergstrom's deletion style. I did not mention it as an example of a good or great article. I mentioned that it is an article I am working on, and an example of an article that no one should hastily take a hacksaw to. It needs to be edited with care. I mentioned this despite knowing the likelihood that Petergstrom would follow me there. There are few Wikipedia articles of significant interest to me that I can edit without worrying about a lot of conflict. Editing that article was something that gave me peace because there were no big disputes going on there and I knew that I could focus on bringing the article to WP:GA level, like I had been meaning to do. The article is currently full-protected, and I hope to edit it with little conflict in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: When it comes to considering whether or not I am being stalked, I do carefully examine the matter; I don't solely base it on past experiences. The past experiences do, however, significantly aid my deductions. I have an overlap with Doc James and Jytdog too, but Doc James rarely gets involved with articles like Vegetarianism or Veganism, or sexual and gender topics, and Jytdog is editing some of the articles that I edit because either I asked him to or he saw past stalking matters related to me and decided to get involved. In addition to the aforementioned articles I noted that I significantly edit, I just noticed that Petergstrom has also recently focused on the Gender article. I have significant history with that article, and with other gender topics. Having some overlap with me is understandable, but when it's articles that I significantly edit, and across a number of different fields, I think I have a valid reason to be concerned. History shows that I do. I take being hounded very seriously and will not hesitate to bring the matter to WP:ANI if I feel that I have compelling evidence of being hounded. All that stated, I am looking to resolve the Human brain article dispute and will try not to inflame matters involving Petergstrom in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I too do not want to escalate things anymore. I dont think there is anything more that I can say, other than I truly do not care about what you edit, and have no intent to hound or harass. Buuuuuuut.....all the stuff is in one field-gender is relavent in neuroscience and psychology. But that is beside the point. Bottom line is, I truly have never had, and never will have the desire to hound anyone. Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Experience shows that mature people who are interested in collaboration and the development of the encyclopedia are able to make complaints without the level of indignation seen in this case. If you are really interested in building content it might be an idea to focus on that, while engaging in any discussions on article talk pages in a constructive manner. And stop posting here unless it is to post new evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to concur with others that User:Petergstrom's edits in the areas of medicine and religion have been extremely problematic. One can see that User:Petergstrom edits with an agenda, promoting a non-neutral point of view; for exaxmple, he attempted to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On our article about Religiosity and intelligence, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own POV--what's more troublesome is that he tried to conceal the nature of his edit by using a benign edit summary. This is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour. At this time, a topic ban on articles relating to medicine and religion, broadly construed, is warranted.--Jobas (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this particular situation but I should probably mention that the last time that I saw Flyer22 get accused of "Wikihounding with false sock puppetry accusations", her sock accusations were very much correct. DarkKnight2149 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 by this you mean that Flyer's accusations were correct, no that the accusations against Flyer were. I'm asking because it's not 100% clear to me which one you mean. I'm guessing the former since you've linked an LTA case in which Flyer was significantly involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude I meant that the accusations that Flyer made were true, not the accusations against her. Sorry about the unintentional ambiguity in my statement. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still no response from User:Soli58. El_C 23:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for User:Petergstrom on articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed

• Support As mentioned by multiple editors above, User:Petergstrom has failed to adhere to WP:NPOV in the areas of medicine and religion, which is demonstrated by edits such as attempting to add false information to articles about historical religious figures, e.g. stating that Jesus and Moses had paranoid schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). He has also censored information that might not support his personal POV, e.g. recent diff), he also ignored the Pew research source and decide to put a POV on atheism (see here recent diff). These issues, coupled with User:Petergstrom's hounding of User:Flyer22 Reborn warrant a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed.--Jobas (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, the religion additions were when I first started--one source was not enough for what I wrote. They additions weren't "false". Secondly, the recent edits on the religion and intelligence articles are actually being pushed in the direction I was attempting to push it in before your edit war( relavent info, quality sourcing).Petergstrom (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support This user's edit history is very troublesome. Mistercontributer (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that religion needs to be included here, but I've been watching the medicine issues from afar for a while, and I'm leaning towards supporting a topic ban there. I'd like to hear from a few more editors before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for medicine only. I don't think we have a demonstration of contentious editing in on religion. I'm troubled by what I have read in this thread. The indignation and battle ground mentality exhibited by the OP is not encouraging.--Adam in MO Talk 04:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO this user's editing in on religion is very troublesome as well, (see /w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=747047573 Example 1, Example 2), (Example 3). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have viewed those links and I don't think that Peter is at the level of a topic ban yet. Bad edits don't warrant a topic ban. Bad edits and battle ground behavior certainly do. Do you have any evidence of the latter?--Adam in MO Talk 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO I think it's bad edits and battle ground behavior, for example see here in Jesus article: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and the user demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring. anther example is Ignatius of Loyola article, see here (1), (2), (3). also here in Moses article (1), (2), (3). It's just some examples.--Jobas (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

JobasThose are misguided edits from a new users. No one has presented any indication that the contentious editing is ongoing. Thanks for your input. I respectfully disagree.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam in MO, no problems, Thanks and Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, although early on I pretty much interpreted the policies in a way the community did not generally interpret them, I have actually made some pretty decent contributions in the neuro/psych area. I understand the my lack of desire to engage with other editors has been troublesome, but I am curious as to whether my past behavior is really indicative of a future where the pros are outweighed by the cons. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support for ban on religion and likely medicine. Unfortunately, I had to intervene as a mediator on a few recent edit wars on the Religiosity and Intelligence page and was a bit disturbed by some of the recent edits the editor used such as [201] when some compromise would have been the better choice during the edit war. I also found troubling that after being warned about violating the 3RR, the user deleted that information from their talk page [202]. Also, when discussing a source on atheism and religion if it was acceptable, the language seemed quite aggressive and dismissive to others when it could have been charitable including remarks telling other editors that they should not edit religious pages [203] because of them identifying with religion was POV pushing and conflict of interest on religious pages. On the 3RR noticeborad one of the edits even said "Thats 3RR, there is obviously a COI, given you user page. I don't want to have to talk this to admin board" [204], as reported by another editor User:Renzoy16. No editor should ever say to another editor those kinds of things. For medicine, it seems that the editor has been blocked twice for edit warring there too despite being on Wikipedia for only a few months. Perhaps this can be remedied if the behavior changes significantly, but it need not get this hot over religion topics.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - for all the troubling history, some of which I agree is extremely troubling, the editor in question hasn't even been here a full six months yet, at least under this name. If someone were willing to mentor him as per WP:MENTOR, it might be possible that his conduct might improve. Having said that, there does seem to be a very real issue of perhaps excessively high self-opinion regarding this editor, and if that were true it might well be that mentoring might be ineffective. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A CU was just performed and confirmed that I am unrelated to any of the accounts I was accused of operating. The behavioral "evidence" is weak at best.Petergstrom (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"The behavioral evidence is weak at best" You don't talk like a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is also, I think, hard to imagine a relatively new user so frequently expressing outrage regarding the conduct of others, as Petergstrom has repeatedly done here. Most newer editors I've encountered are much less familiar with all the details of our policies and guidelines, and on that basis have been much less likely to indulge in such expressions of outrage. And I think most newbies would be a lot less likely to use the abbreviation "CU' as Peter does above as opposed the full term. Most wouldn't be as familiar with the abbreviations, although a person with a history of sockpuppetry would probably know it all too well. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I just came from viewing the CU page...that was how Jytdog abbreviated it, so that is how I abbreviate it....I can't believe I thought this would clear things up. Looks like no amount of evidence can change the preconceived opinions you guys have. I'm so done. Whatever.Petergstrom (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom: you will notice that I have actually indicated that I thought mentoring you might be useful as an alternative to sanctions. And thereafter you, on no basis whatsoever so far as I can see, accuse me of having preconceived notions. Your comment, if anything, demonstrates your own biases and apparent unwillingness to deal with criticism. While I thank you for your clarification, I also believe it reasonable to note that what may well be one of your most substantial problems, an unfortunately high opinion of yourself and your regularly making at best unwarranted incivil comments to others, seems to be continuing unabated, and that cannot reflect well for you. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am willing to be mentored. I am willing to work better with editors. But I currently don't see that happening right now, if, with very very limited evidence, the accusations of sock puppetry continue-with the constant threat of a ban looming, it is hard to work effectively. Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure I see "accusations of sockpuppetry." I see a statement from her that she might be collecting evidence for a sockpuppet investigation, which is rather a different matter entirely. There isn't a great deal anyone can do about editors doing such off-wiki - trust me on this as someone who has repeatedly been advised of collection of information against him by others. ;) On that basis, the "constant threat of a ban looming" also seems to be at least a bit of an overstatement. The best way to minimize any such risks might be to try to focus at least in the short term on some non-controversial articles and/or make a point of proposing changes on talk pages and getting support there before making them. There are a lot of WP:GNOME-like tasks which one could easily do to help make him more familiar with a broader range of content and other pages, which also might give that person a better grasp of "standard procedures" of a sort. And there are, presumably, a massive number of articles on books or authors in almost all topics which meet notability requirements but don't exist yet. Any such actions might be useful and probably less likely to lead to controversy. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bearing in mind that "CU is not magic pixie dust", I simply don't believe this is a new editor, which is the only argument that seemed acceptable to me for not imposing a topic ban. Given that, a topic ban is quite a reasonable sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I actually see two proposed topic bans here, medicine and religion. Could you be a bit more specific about which proposal(s) you are supporting? John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I see one topic ban in the proposal, "a topic ban on all articles pertaining to medicine and religion, broadly construed." Now some people may object to one part of it or the other, and if I had wanted to do so, I would have, but my !vote was on the proposal as originally stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock investigation

For those wondering why I have called Petergstrom a sock or what evidence I have, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal redux

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

---

Greetings. Last month I opened a thread on the TFD vandal. It started as an inquiry into a rangeblock, but that became moot. But the question had been asked about whether the volume of vandalism had risen to the point where WMF should be contacting the vandal's ISP--this question had gone unanswered before the thread was archived. So I'll ask again--what's the appropriate point to try an abuse report at the ISP level? I'm persistent enough to continue playing Whac-A-Mole with all the various IPs, but is an escalation warranted? --Finngall ^talk 04:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You'll probably be better off posting on one of the WMF staff member's talk pages either here on wikipedia or on Meta. I'd suggest Kbrown (WMF) or Jalexander-WMF --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: Cameron's suggestion above is a good idea, but it may be worth noting that Wikipedia:Abuse response was once a thing - the reason why it stopped being a mixture of being time consuming and ISPs not actioning reports. Coincidently I once contacted a local council/school regarding a long term vandal and they responded positively (though if any action was taken is another question..) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks. If you want to request something from my team at the WMF, the surest way to do that is to send an email to cawikimedia.org - we don't always spot pings that come via Echo in time (obviously!), and it's more effective for us to be able to track a request like this via an email thread (preferably that contains a fullly-explained request), anyway. In this case, if someone would write up a summary of the behavior, what you know about the person behind the account, evidence, and what you're hoping the WMF can do, and send it in to that email address, we will take a look. Thanks, and sorry we missed your ping the first time around! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Twitternotices is impersonating a journalist

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

---

This users first edits were to the article Anca Verma, an article were we have been struggling to deal with editing by this person's legal firm via multiple socks.

When I asked User:Twitternotices about this they replied they were a journalist in India. When I reached out to the journalist in question via linkedin the journalist stated that they are not editing Wikipedia.

Wondering peoples thoughts on this? And what we should do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to indef block until we can figure out what the heck is going on, but we still need to respect innocent until proven guilty. As such, it may be a good idea to ask questions of the user and if they don't respond and/or become disruptive, then we can start taking further measures. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in their contributions that suggests they are impersonating anyone. I assume the evidence was forwarded to you via email or some other means. If so, the correct policy response is at WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE: If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Please follow this policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just doing my job and fairly editing articles (without any bias). Yesterday I created a new article on Iulia Vantur another Romanian celebrity which is not yet complete. I am new to Wikipedia and I wish to continue here for the good of society. Twitternotices (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@@Twitternotices: Now, when you say I am just doing my job and fairly editing articles, do you mean that your "job" is editing Wikipedia articles? My understanding is that paid editing is allowed, but it needs to be disclosed, and you earlier explicitly denied having a COI in this area. I would tell you what you need to do to prove your good faith, but if you really are editing in good faith it should be obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Article creation ban proposal: Junosoon

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

---

First, I want to say that I realize it's disagreeable to be taken to ANI, and I have tried asking Junosoon if they will agree voluntarily to not create articles other than through Articles for creation. But after asking twice, I have only received a quite mysterious reply,[205] so here we are.

Junosoon (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since July 2016, and has encountered some difficulties in their editing of Indian economy pages, which ended in SpacemanSpiff giving them a six-month topic ban from content relating to the economy of India on 30 December 2016.[206]. They appealed the ban at WP:AE, but the appeal was declined here. Their disruption in the area of Indian economy included the creation of many inappropriate articles which have since been deleted or redirected. Admins can see the deleted articles here. Four Indian economy articles have been redirected (which isn't a lot different from being deleted, of course).

Since they were topic banned from the Indian economy a little over a month ago, Junosoon has taken an interest in American politics. I just gave them a discretionary sanctions alert for this area, mainly because the Am pol articles they're now creating are for tiny details of Donald Trump's administration, which shouldn't IMO be separate articles. Several of them are now at AfD, compare AfD notifications on J's talkpage.

A detail I've noticed (and have asked Junosoon about without response) is that when Junosoon has created an article, they themselves then rate it for quality and importance on the talkpage. I haven't checked them all, no, but the ones I checked had these self-ratings. J generally rates their creations as "mid-importance", which includes the ones that have been deleted for lack of notability. I don't think they mean any harm with these ratings (or with any of their editing), but the rates are too high, and self-rating them is naturally altogether inappropriate.

It's obvious from J's talkpage that they're pretty impervious to advice from experienced users. I'm particularly concerned about their response here to Vanamonde93's friendly and pertinent advice about article creation. IMO the response doesn't show any understanding of the problem at all, or of the fact that creating inappropriate articles is something that drains the time and energy of other editors. When I saw that reply, in conjunction with Junosoon's recent article Donald Trump promise of Making America Safe Again, now at AfD, I considered topic banning the user from post-1932 American politics. However... their problematic article creation is its own problem, which has now moved from Indian economy to American politics, and could of course move on to other areas. Advice about article-worthiness doesn't seem to help. Creating articles via Articles for creation would be educational, as would more experience in updating existing content. Therefore, I propose a community ban from creating articles other than through Articles for creation. I would encourage Junosoon to first learn from doing these things, and later, say in six months' time, apply to the community to be again permitted to create articles directly into mainspace. Please comment below. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

• Support Bishonen's post is thorough enough that I'm tempted to write "QED" and leave it at that; so let me just add that they have shown a general disinclination to follow suggestions and advice. I don't know whether this is due to malintent or simply competence issues, but the problem is especially acute when they create new pages which more experienced folks then have to look up and deal with. The problem is severe enough that I would even support a ban from creating articles, period, but if folks are content with sending J to AFC, that's fine. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef creation ban - the lack of concern from this user is becoming disruptive. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Long time coming, and at this point the most merciful solution. After the amount of disruption this user has caused, an indef block proposal would probably have enough support to pass, but let's see if this solves the problem before pursuing that option. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral on whether it should be a total ban or include an AFC exception. I generally trust several of the users who are supporting the broader ban, but I don't know enough about how AFC works to say whether I agree or disagree with Boing!'s concern that an AFC exception would shift the burden onto them. Just take me as supporting whichever option is most likely to pass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I remember the Indian economy articles problem and the resulting topic ban, and unfortunately all that's achieved is a shift in topic but still the insistence on creating new articles for tiny bits of trivia. This is a big drain on resources as AFD is a time- and labour-intensive process. So yes, an indef article creation ban (except via AFC) would seem appropriate, which can be appealed no sooner than six months (after demonstrating success via AFC). I'd also suggest watching any subsequent AFC requests with a view to extending the ban if we see the same trivia there without any sign of learning, as the hard-pressed folks working at AFC are very busy too and should not have their time wasted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  As others are suggesting, and after more thought, I favour a ban from all article creation with no AFC requests allowed. An appeal can be made after six months, when we can examine whatever other contributions have been made instead. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support an indef ban against creating articles - the need seems obvious, and I'd rather not burden AfC with this. In six months he could appeal offering a few sample draft articles. If those show any hope, we could modify the ban to allow him to use AfC. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment , I would certainly wish to learn if my article creations are inappropriate, my concern is that,User:Winged Blades of Godric has already been working hard much before this nomination, [207],[208], and I am sure the User:Winged Blades of Godric,recent reaction , as here [209] and User:Vanamonde93, donot like my work, I believe , there is strong evidence of personal issues problems, previous histories of both of them not supporting my work, would certainly not admire my work of article creations through AfC. Junosoon (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC), Undoubtedly, I admit my creations, might not be up to mark, which I certainly wish to improve, I am not against this ban, as it would be learning experience, for me.Junosoon (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC), also I would I like to point, that all the articles, written by me, I submit it to Wikipedia community, as a cooperative, effort, not I have no ownership of content, so what ever the community feels good, they are welcomed to take any action, on the contributions. So far I have used the title search, method only in before creation of articles, and I understand that article creation can never be one alone work, but team efforts, which expands or adds to article, which I have always looked for and addressed, be it adding references, I am thankful to all other editors who had helped me with suggestions on improving the articles.Junosoon (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  Junosoon, you are certainly trying to do your best here, I'm convinced of that. But I don't think creating new articles is the best way to learn. I think a better way (for everyone who's still relatively new, in fact) is to work on existing articles. For example, you might look for existing stubs and short articles that interest you, and do some research for reliable sources and use them expand the articles. There are lots of ways you can contribute without actually creating new articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee:, thanks.Junosoon (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Bishonen: Hi,Bishonen, kindly don't address, phrases Junosoon's article creations as you have done on talk page [210], as I have stated before the articles written by me donot have ownership of content or conflict of interest, posting such phrases, on a discussion pages, would certainly impart wrong message to the community. Thanks, hope you correct the phrase.Junosoon (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support an indef creation ban per Doug Weller. Though I think an indef WP:CIR block may not be a bad idea either. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Doug Weller. I admire their want to create articles, but we do not need articles on such minutiae. It's clear that they have been given advice on how to edit better, and have not responded to it, see the topic ban on Indian economics. I also agree that having articles vetted through AFC will only tax the editors that review AFC as well, so an outright creation ban is the sensible way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong suport--After the topic ban by SpacemanSpiff, J changed his working field but the issues/deficiencies were hardly addressed.Coupled with it is his frequent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude.I would not even mind supporting a WP:CIR indef ban either.I also support Boing's other's proposal that he be keenly watched at WP:AFC too the ban be imposed without the AFC loophole.There's no point in burdening an already over-burdened project and frankly there's enough ways one can contribute here without necessarily creating articles!

 Comment:-@Junosoon:--In what way is my request to be granted the new-page reviewer right even slightly linked with the content of this discussion?Winged Blades ^Godric 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Change my mind about AfC. Several clueful people have pointed out above that overburdening WP:AfC is not the way to go, and I've taken it on board. I now support Doug Weller's suggestion for an indef ban against creating articles altogether, including AfC drafts, with the option of appealing for permission to create them via AfC after six months. As Boing! has implied, working on existing articles for at least six months would be a more constructive way for Junosoon to learn. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

This is probably an unworkable thought, but is there any way we could limit Junosoon to, say, 3 AfC submissions at any one time? This is not 3 pending reviews at a time, but 3 articles in total, in any state. I think AfC is the only way they are going to learn, but certainly I don't want to be responsible for loading AfC with hundreds of impassable submissions at once. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@78.26: that might be too complex. Junosoon is a pretty inexperienced editor with some language problems, and we don't want to put them (or us!) in a situation where they innocently violate overly elaborate editing conditions. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, I figured, but I hate entirely preventing enthusiastic good-faith creation. I support ban on article creation, as well as AfC creation. (unless someone significantly brighter than me comes up with a workable workaround.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef ban without the AfC 'loophole' for the reasons described by Doug and Bish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support an indef ban on new articles. In looking over their talk page, I see that I PRODed one of their contributions as a one-sentence article with no references. Part of the problem is that this is an editor who thinks that the way that they should contribute to Wikipedia is by creating one-sentence stubs with no references. One-sentence unsourced articles, while permitted, are not helpful in the English Wikipedia, which already has five million articles of varying quality, because they create work for editors who want to save them. This is an editor who needs to work with the articles that we already have, rather than the articles that we don't have. Creating unsourced stubs is especially problematic when discretionary sanctions are applicable. Tell them to stop creating new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Creating a bunch of stub articles that have little notability just makes more work for the rest of us...TJH2018talk 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support without loophole Per Bishonen. We really need them to stop making non-notable articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support original proposal. From what Junosoon says above about using title search to identify new article topics, and other features of their editing including the odd statements about Winged Blades of Goric above, I suspect English competency is a large part of this. AfC is in a position to help them with both that and notability/referencing. Not all their article starts are meritless, and 2016 Saudi Arabian snowstorm and 2017 Verona bus crash (current titles) are both articles of value on topics about non-English-speaking places, where much of the problem was the quality of the article writing. I don't want Wikipedia to miss out on such articles, on an entrenched bias/not enough editors basis, so although I know AfC is backlogged: that's what it's for. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban from creating articles at all with appeal in 6 months. People who struggle with English are very capable of learning and of showing that they are trying to listen to others and to authentically respond. Trying to talk with others is essential for the community to function, and for learning so one can be individually productive. Junosoon has been brought here because of their behavior and this is the correct outcome. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support original proposal I think we should allow Junosoon, in good-faith, another chance. They have shown some skill and definitely a lot of enthusiasm and created several useful articles. Sure, they have created some that do not meet our high standards but I cannot see the harm in allowing them a final chance to take part in the AFC process. If they submit excessive unacceptable content to AFC, then further action can be taken at that time. We should encourage editors from non-European backgrounds to be involved in the project, especially with the systemic bias we have, which makes us poorer. Most editors from India make invaluable contributions to the project. English is one of two official languages of the country so a desire exists to participate on the English Wikipedia. Blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. They shouldn't be punitive. Participating in the AFC process will not cause imminent damage. If Junosoon is willing to reform their editing style then I believe that we should give them that opportunity in good faith. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Unusual Usernames

Hi all,

As I was patrolling the User Creation Log, I came across a large batch of names created one after another. Only reason I'm bringing it here is because they haven't done anything wrong, except for the fact that their userpages are nearly identical...which leads me to believe that they may be part of an educational project...

• User:Melissa0908
• User:Courtney 1994
• User:Hayleygil
• User:Eilish2
• User:ZachIsWack
• User:Evbestie
• User:SinaOhlandt
• User:Cathym97
• User:Lucystewpid
• User:Ailsamaloney12
• User:Charkleske
• User:FionaThacker
• User:LewisCollie
• User:Harry1875

Not too sure where to put this besides here...TJH2018talk 16:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Judging by their Userpages and talk pages, you are almost certainly correct. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just bear in mind that this might be some sort of computer education "edit-a-thon". I have a coworker who edited WP as part of a class project not too long ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty to leave them a welcome message as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a college course. Some of the user pages say "this is for my Digital Media class". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I would have said a high school course, not a college one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I noticed, too. It led me to comment. That being said, they do bear watching. Young adults learning to edit WP for the first time aren't likely to make dozens of contributions without a few (serious) fuckups. But be welcoming! I'm going to keep an eye on them, and I'm going to act like a straight-up wiki-ambassador if I have to revert, explaining exactly why, explaining how they can do it better next time, welcoming them, inviting them to ask questions on my talk page, offering sexual favors, etc, etc. I suggest a few more folks do the same. Good new editors are a rare breed, we should encourage more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've welcomed and offered to help such users before, but for some reason they seldom respond. I'm wondering if they're supposed to do the class-required stuff mainly on their own...White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine that they create the accounts during class, then are assigned homework to edit WP. Since college homework is rarely graded, most don't do it unless they need the practice to pass the test. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard to see if any of the volunteers over there are aware of the class. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

This is getting well out of hand, PAs, ridicule, accusations of bias and telling uses to fucking stop [211] [212] [213][214]

I have not linked to all (just the latest spat, the last 12 hours), it is the whole thread.

This needs to be put a stop to I have no wish to say who I think is at fault (I do not think it is one person) but there seems to be an attitude that says "we will not tolerate any Fringy stuff, or those who support it's inclusion". This in turn is causing other users to respond angrily.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the two users pinged in my "fucking stop" comment were actively edit warring...as in...a reversion every few seconds. That wasn't directed at anyone but them, and I have no opinion on, nor have I actually read whatever that conversation is actually about. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about this from the beginning. JpS (or however else they wish to be known) was hatting a polite and civil comment on my part where I was requesting JpS comment on the edits, not the editors. This is a perfectly normal request which we all see many times a day on WP. I reverted the hatting because it is "illegal" - WP:Hatting states " ...should only be used by uninvolved editors "(bold emphasis is from the page). JpS is clearly involved and should not have hatted my comment. I'm not even sure why this is being classified as edit warring on my part, other than I reverted JpS' illegal hatting twice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment about no tolerating stuff was about a general tone I have seen on the forum from a group of editors of whom Jps is the most vocal. I am sorry if you think that was aimed at you. To be clear the only complaint I have with you was the swearing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the intention was to get someone's attention, and apparently it worked. The amount of dumb in edit warring over whether to hat a nine word comment is beyond my dumb-tolerance-specifications. TimothyJosephWood 19:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, perhaps you would feel differently if it was your words that were being illegally hatted. Would you care to comment on the edit summaries that JpS has been leaving at that thread? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you'll note, I unhatted when I left my comment, so that should probably suffice as to my opinion on it. Other than that, I'm not really part of this complaint. I would only note the pointy header installed after I unhatted. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I should have thanked you at the time for the unhatting - thank you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am quite in the dark about why jps/9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/ScienceApologist is saying I have some bone to pick or clear agenda there, or why he wants to hat or section off the bit where he said so, but I wouldn't call it edit warring unless he repeats those actions. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tim is talking about Jps and DrCrissy, and we can now add edit warring to the list.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• All of this appears to be over whether or not to call Eric Lerner a "scientist". I do think that jps needs to dial it down. But here's an idea: for all of the reverting at the Lerner bio page and all of the arguing at FTN, not a single word has been spilled at Talk:Eric Lerner. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Then an admin needs to have words with him, as he is ignoring everyone else (not that he seems to be that concerned over admins as well, but then given the number of blocks he has had (and had reduced) that is hardly a surprise). But I shall raise this on the talk page, and see what happens.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I am semi-involved there. I think that discussion has gone way off the rails. WP:STICK needs to be invoked by all concerned, and the dead horse should be left in peace. The only thing I see administrator intervention as facilitating would be a forced end to that discussion by hatting. But I suspect the discussion has drawn to a close naturally. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The the PA's and ridicule, the blatant breaches of AGF?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Keeping a pointless and unproductive discussion alive long past its freshness date can have the general effect of wearing patience thin. This is a tried and true Wikipedia tactic. I have no doubt look that an administrator considering sanctions will not look very kindly at the supposedly "good faith" presentation of creationist sources as if they met WP:RS, failure to RTFA, insisting that to not say something in an article requires a source that says that it's not true, etc. If this was not all a deliberate tactic to provoke other editors at FTN into questioning one's competence and/or good faith, it was doing a damn good job of pretending to be just that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Which "pointless discussion"?, as to "creationist sources" they are not automatically not RS, and this shows exactly the kind of attitude I was referring to in my OP here. The automatic and contemptuous dismissal of anything that does not agree with their POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I understand that it looks like automatic and contemptuous dismissal. I really do. But go to Talk:Creationism, Talk:Evolution, Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, Talk:Evidence of common descent and Talk:Intelligent design and read through the archives of those pages. When you get sick of reading the same arguments over and over, then you might understand the contemptuousness that seems to be present whenever anyone brings up anything creationist. You'll understand that it's not so much contempt as it is frustrated exhaustion.

As to the 'automatic' part, I think the long and well-worn histories on those pages show that this isn't automatic, but the result of years and years of consensus that has been challenged in every conceivable way, yet stood firm against all challenges. I agree that the tone in that thread has gotten out of hand, but as has been pointed out: that's to be expected for this kind of discussion. Sanctions aren't needed because the problems will go away just as soon as the discussion does, and will (tend to, at least) remain within the context of that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you are wrong (after all Jps has multiple blocks for edit warring and other offences (about 1 a year, including a few last chances), but I will accept the decision.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For any article centering on evolution, or the geological history of the earth or other related topics, creationist sources are automatically fringe and not reliable sources except for reporting the views of creationists. They are not reliable for factual, scientific information. That anyone editing a fact-based encyclopedia should think otherwise is simply bizarre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it was clear from context I was saying he was wrong about Jps not continuing his pattern of behavior. Also I was not using the source for "scientific facts" but whether some is a practicing science (which (as with any job) you do not have to be any good at to practice it). The point being made is that they are not RS for anything they say. I never tried to use it to support a scientific fact, not have ever said they are usefull for that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed should, I think fully address the question of whether creationist sources are reliable for claims which are even related to science. They're not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Devencci2005 – disruptive editing, part 2

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

---

The user Devencci2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given a short block three days ago. Their behaviour has not changed, unfortunately. I doubt they actually noticed the block. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 72-hour block. They for the past few days have gone straight back into the same editing pattern that resulted in the initial block. I left them a note stating that future violations may lead to an indef block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:AusLondonder

User:AusLondonder has been badgering me, including repeatedly tagging a userfied article for speedy deletion as well as making wild accusations and not assuming good faith on multiple pages.--TM 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Still looking, but... Hey, @AusLondonder:, from WP:G4: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).

I think you're misusing G4 on his userified copy and you need to stop that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Article was previously deleted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Cohen Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to propose a boomerang for Namiba. The Linda Cohen article was deleted through the usual community process at AFD in May 2016. Shortly before that, Namiba moved the article to userspace. Since then, Namiba has made zero edits to improve the article. WP:G4 states that content that has been moved to userspace to circumvent deletion policy is eligible for speedy deletion. WP:FAKEARTICLES also makes clear that "Pages that preserve material previously deleted, without an active attempt to address the reasons for deletion, if left live, may be deleted by tagging with db-g4". Namiba then proceded to violate WP:CSD policy by removing the speedy tag three times from the userpage. Namiba furthermore violated WP:UP#CMT by removing the speedy notification from their talk page. Regarding harassment, not assuming good faith, and making wild accusations, Namiba launched a bad-faith attack on me for nominating an article on a non-notable African-American for deletion during Black History Month, implicitly accusing me of racism. Namiba then immediately made a disruptive revenge deletion nomination of an article I had created on a secondary school in Africa. Namiba must cease this highly disruptive and battleground behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert How the hell am I misusing G4? It is pretty clear. AusLondonder (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment Namiba has now removed the speedy tag placed by another editor a further three times (for a total of six), obviously violating WP:3RR (which they have been warned for in the past) and continued to remove speedy notification from their talkpage AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Was any effort made anywhere to explain "If you don't work to improve this, it can't hang around indefinitely in your userspace", or did you just move straight to a G4 proposal? You appear to have just moved straight to G4ing it. No talk page, no edit summary, nothing. If I am mistaken please point out where you did so notify. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Namiba is not a newbie, and, I assumed, would have resented having things "explained" to them by myself, a much newer editor. They've been editing for more than a decade. They've made nearly 90,000 edits. They were of course welcome to object to the speedy deletion proposal, they chose not to. I notified them immediately. I'm not sure how you can be the only other editor here to choose to criticise me instead, given the page has now been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How can you think that just repeating something several times without explaining why/what is appropriate *anywhere* to *anyone*? And this goes for @Twitbookspacetube: as well. People misunderstand or misread policy all the time. Hammering harder is never the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The best way to explain something is to let someone read it for themselves. That was done. How would you have explained the "why" and "what" differently? AusLondonder (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The policies had been linked to and reverted from their talkpage on at least 5 occasions. Clearly no effort was made to read them. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. If an editor with a decade's experience and approaching 90,000 edits is not listening it is not the obligation of other editors to waste their own time and somehow magically translate for them. Seems we're having a bit of nit-picking going on here. How about we nitpick about the false allegations against me at the start of this ANI? AusLondonder (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Didn't realise that this had come here. I already deleted the page and explained that you can't just keep stuff, since last April, without making some improvement. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I encountered AusLondoner at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hunter-Clarke_(2nd_nomination) and immediately had concerns.  I noticed that in an AfD mentioned above, he removed the prod with the edit comment "funny".  Yet the only reference in the article at the time was from youtube.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing

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

---

I am asking for an admin to block IP 68.186.227.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruptive editing. They are adding unsourced content [215], [216], [217]. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: You should remember to sign, not just date, your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Generally, adding unsourced content is not a blockable offense (and indeed it seems like in recent years there has apparently been a move towards claiming that removing, or tagging, unsourced content is the greater problem). What you should say is that the IP should be blocked for edit-warring to insert unsourced material that has been challenged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice about my signature. I'm on mobile, so I don't notice the mistakes as easily. I've fixed it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this to AN3. The IP is still reinserting the unsourced title. Someone can close this thread for me. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Article created in user space, then moved to project space

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

---

Dr barz (talk · contribs) created an article at their user page, then moved it to Wikipedia:Barz. I reverted the move of their talk page, then discovered the article in project space.

From their edit history, this seems to be an SPA who is WP:NOTTHERE for anything other than spamming. — Gorthian (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Ongoing edit war on White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

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

---

White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to have an ongoing edit war. There seem to be a number of auto-confirmed involved. Jim1138 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A better venue for this would be WP:RFPP - I've taken the liberty of filing a request for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arunabha Bhattacharjee

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

---

Apparently closed (perhaps wrongly) as a Keep by a new editor. I've left a note on the talk page of the editor to undo the closure. Leaving a note here for any administrator who can perhaps guide and assist the new editor in reversing the close. Thanks. Lourdes 08:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Undid AFD close. Strongly warned editor. Judging from their edits, I strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing is going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, this editor, Godisthebestone, should not be closing deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN, NinjaRobotPirate. Lourdes 12:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

External Links

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

---

I recieved a message from BronHiggs concerning possible extreme deletionists in the external links WikiProject. He believes that these deletionists go to pages and delete large amounts of external links without proper reason. Please go to User talk:Adotchar#Wikipedia External Links Project to see what he is saying.
Now as this is concerning deletionists in the External Links project, I think it makes sense to have this discussion here and not at the external links noticeboard. There was already a discussion there, that hasn't exactly ended yet, but BronHiggs was opposed by almost everyone, likely because he seeks to change the external links project on the external links noticeboard. [218] He started off the inquiry by linking to a page he entirely changed, like he does with many marketing articles. (BronHiggs is extremely active in marketing related articles, and has made many start-class articles deserving of C or B of maybe A class status, though it's still start because they're low traffic). The link he started the noticeboard section with was al ink to the external links section of an article he greatly expanded. That external links section no longer exists. Also please see User talk:BronHiggs#Massive destruction of good work. What to do.3F, which shows a user complaining about deletionists. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's not "extreme deletionism". It's actually "a number of editors agreeing that those links don't belong in the article per WP:ELNO, and one editor arguing at great length that they do". I don't see a problem, that's how disputes are resolved.
• Probably more of a problem is that the user who complained on User_talk:BronHiggs (User:Culturalresearch) had actually had their external links removed because they were inserting links to their own self-published books. BronHiggs response was to suggest they insert their spam on less patrolled pages!! I know which issue I'd think is more of a problem.... Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

...and also blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The user was pretty evidently shopping for sympathy. They also posted at the Teahouse and my talk page about the same things. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for help with AfD disruption

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

---

Greetings, can someone please cast their eye over the actions of Hanna Mania300 at this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwen Gyimah (2nd nomination)? The editor has been confirmed as a sockpuppet after I initiated this SPI which is currently awaiting Admin action. In the meantime, the disruptive editing and use of multiple accounts continues to disrupt the AfD (I found this bungled edit a particularly hilarious attempt to hide the fact that they're using multiple accounts) and I'd like to request a temporary block for this editor until the admin action from the SPI takes place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sockpuppet indefinitely blocked. Master also indefinitely blocked as they show no interest in editing anything outside of this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Please block this NOTHERE user

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

---

Simon19801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a has a contribution history that almost entirely consists of WP:FORUM posts on talk pages, harassment [219], personal attacks[220] and TPG violations. They have ignored repeated warnings: [221] [222] [223] [224]. I am requesting he be indefinitely blocked for WP:DE as he is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. - MrX 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked with a note on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN.- MrX 12:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Non UK Admin needed re ENGVAR

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

---

Hi, can we have a non British admin resolve things at User_talk:Bumblebritches57#Different_varieties_of_English please. ϢereSpielChequers 17:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If he carries on edit warring in defiance of WP:ENGVAR I'll resolve it by blocking him (even though I'm British too), so it would certainly help if someone could get him to stop first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I've replied on the talk page. Reviewing their edits, I'm close to issuing a block for disruptive editing, especially given their recent editing history. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) & (Non-British Observation) The WP:MOS is pretty clear on this, and I'm not sure how it would change from a British administrator reading it to an American or an administrator from any other country. Also what does British imperialism have to do with the the price of tea in China?--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And I just realized the analogy doesn't work here because it had a bit to do with the price of tea in China. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(neither American nor British admin comment) Their "I don't listen to brits" scores poorly on the here to build an encyclopaedia gauge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to be a bit WP:IDHT and Not Here-esque ----Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked over his history, and I'm seeing a pretty obnoxious approach to collegial editing, together with some anti-feminist POV-pushing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This may be relevant to the conversation: [225]. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting an impression of WP:NOTHERE from their edits, is anyone else? Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"@Black Kite: Looking through their talk page history I concur. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user seems to be on a slow campaign to right the Great Wrong of not preferring American spelling and units as standard throughout the project. As evidence: [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]. Some of these are probably valid ENGVAR consistency edits, but there's a pattern of changing things to American standards without any thought and often against consensus. Terse notes in edit summaries further suggest a POV campaign: "damn commies", "Engrish", "use proper english", "easier to read". And of course the icing on that particular cake is today's "I don't listen to brits". I'm doubtful a strict final warning will be of much use here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Very troubling diffs. I don't see how they're gonna work out here. Tiderolls 19:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC) ...and, I'm an American admin, btw. Just sayin'...
• In the past, Bumblebritches has been blocked for a month under Gamergate sanctions. I'm also really close to issuing a block for this new crusade. Deor (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A minor (pardon the pun) annoyance, they also have been marking a lot of edits as "minor edits", which are including the removal of material, as in their latest edit. WP:NOTHERE is certainly coming into play. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs a block and a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes please. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I kind of object to a Wikipedian asking for a particular kind of admin to handle a problem, based on nationality. Surely there must be a guideline on that sort of thing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an abundance of caution -- the idiot editor under discussion is anti-British, pro-American (and BTW, I'm an American) so if an American admin issues the block it avoids the appearance of partisanism. EEng 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If push came to shove, I'm sure WereSpielChequers or any Brit-admin could have handled it. This is just a way to highlight a problematic request from a problematic editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we give such people more than one strike? The chance of this person becoming a constructive editor is 1 x 10^-86 i.e. about the chance of you and I randomly selecting the same elementary particle out of the entire observable universe. Just block indefinitely and be done with it. EEng 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. I realize I'm involved, seeing as I replied to their concern for a "non-Brit admin", however this user was not clearly here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand the policy, but I don't think you were really involved in this case. Either way, good call. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Good bock, more than deserved, "I don't listen to Brits" is enough justification for a NOTHERE block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rick, have a digestive -Roxy the dog. bark 22:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If I can add some Old Bay to it sure! RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

You are displaying racism!

I'm posting this request on ANI not to request blocks or other punitive actions requiring admin tools, but just to solicit some assistance and advice with the hope that if it comes from an admin it might be taken more seriously.

In a nutshell,

• (1) I've been accused by a fellow editor of improperly "canvassing users with my POV" to a deletion discussion, and I find that offensive (here is my non-targeted canvass message); and more significantly,
• (2) I've been called a racist, which is outrageous and completely unacceptable. (Here is the diff of the comments.)
• (3) These personal attacks took place not on an Admin noticeboard (which is the appropriate place to make these assertions) or on a personal User Talk page (where I'm much more tolerant of people ranting at me, as long as we can have a dialog about it), but at a public community discussion with, in my opinion, the intent of poisoning those discussions.

I've tried removing and replacing the personal attacks with the (Personal attack removed) template per WP:TPO, but he repeatedly re-inserts them in the community discussion. I've asked him to bring his allegations here to ANI, with evidence, but he ignored my suggestion. I've tried opening a dialog on his User Talk page to discuss his concerns, which was ignored and deleted. Now I am asking an Admin to review the situation and then clearly convey to User:Jobas that personal attacks of this nature are not okay, and if he has concerns about a fellow editor, he should raise them at the appropriate noticeboard in the future.

Context by way of full disclosure: there is already some friction here, as I am a co-nominator in this deletion discussion of a category created by User:Jobas. And I've already been critical of Jobas for pinging at least 5 other editors (known to be in disagreement with me in related matters) to the discussion in violation of our canvassing policy. Thanks in advance for any assistance in this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:Jobas has been notified of this report on his Talk page.

I'm afraid that you might get Wikipedia:BOOMERANGED here Xenophrenic. It's pretty convenient that you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston of the fact that you refactored the comments of several editors. I'll explain the situation for everyone to evaluate. As stated by the administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. User:BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) admonished User:Xenophrenic that this was very inappropriate and asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request):

But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it. It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles, but when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus. That's why I and @Marcocapelle both asked you to repopulate. Please do so, or I will simply go through your contribs list and rollback the relevant edits ... and that may also rollback other changes you made to the same articles. Once the category is restored, feel free to open a CFD nomination for deletion. Make your case and see where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl

It should be noted that User:Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic, agressively edit warring to reinstate his preferred (and censored) version of the article. His unblock request was appropriately declined by administrator User:Huon (it might be helpful to view extensive block log). Now, on the deletion discussion that User:Xenophrenic opened, User:Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him. For example, this diff provides just one (out of many) examples in which User:Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did (in this case see that User:LoveMonkey's and User:Eliko007's comments) were deleted. Another example includes User:Xenophrenic deleting a concern that he WP:CANVASSED several editors to the discussion, in addition to his previous edit warring with User:Ramos1990 (see diff). When these individuals tried to restore their comments, User:Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate. With regard to User:Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack:

Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Xenophrenic

My user page indicates that I have Arab Christian heritage (a minority in my region) and it was obvious that User:Xenophrenic used this to mock me. I will let the rest of the evidence speak for itself, Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that the last quote provided directly above looks like a perhaps really cheap shot by Xenophrenic, and that such do not help reduce the complaint of racism, although I don't think it in and of itself maybe necessarily qualifies as anything other than a cheap opportunistic shot. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

John, please read that quote in context (see the text box just below), and then revise your comment if you see fit. There is certainly no racism or heritage mocking, and the curt snark you sense was in response to Jobas' repeated assertion that I had not cited any sources after I had referenced at least a half-dozen. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This one is going to be messy. I think Jobas overstepped the line with his accusation of racism. And I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of both Jobas for the ping and Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. I was pinged to the deletion discussion and chose not to directly involve myself because the ping might be construed as canvassing as well as my previous, and less than pleasant interactions with Xenophrenic. There is quite a bit of history here that covers more than just this CFD discussion. Jobas and Xenophrenic have been going at it on a number of different threads. IMO both have shown some symptoms of WP:AGENDA oriented editing. I am concerned that Jobas may be here to right great wrongs while Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so. [Full disclosure: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to agree with most of what Ad Orientem says above. A single notice on an article talk page, which is what Xenophrenic links to, under the circumstances, is probably insufficient for these purposes and certainly hints at selective notification/canvassing. I also have gotten a definite impression from X and a few others on the CfD page that at least some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines. I seem to remember discussions of this type regarding various articles or other forms of content relating to this topic as well. Personally, I might favor having a broad based RfC or maybe having ArbCom appoint a board to review the matter of a lot of our "religious persecution by group foo" or "persecution by foo" content rather than selecting one out of the number for specific consideration. And I note that there are also, at this time, similar categories for Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims (as per Category:Religious persecution), which somehow, despite the obvious similarities of topics, were somehow not considered in consideration of the current CfD. Strikes me at least as a little odd. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

some of the comments made there regarding the deletion are perhaps more driven by self-described atheists or nonbelievers to "clear their name" than perhaps by rigorous application of policies and guidelines.

John, I think your bias is showing. You do realize Jobas and I are both Christian, right? Some editors, unfortunately, make it a point to heavily incorporate that into their Wikipedia editing about subjects concerning "the other" groups. I've seen comments which might indicate a person's position, but I don't let that influence my editing here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Since I was pinged here as having declined to unblock Xenophrenic: When I reviewed that unblock request, the block had already run out, and the decline was entirely procedural. No opinion on the current dispute; haven't looked into it. Huon (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BOOMERANG, if an Admin decides to unnecessarily advise me, instead of Jobas, not to call fellow editors racist - it will be wasted words. As for most of the comments above, I realize we've entered a Post truth era, but I naively hoped Wikipedia editors wouldn't surrender themselves to it so thoroughly. Let's examine the comments more closely.

• Alternative fact: you opened this thread directly after I alerted administrator User:EdJohnston --Jobas

Reality: No, I saw your note to Ed, and I even responded there. Then you again re-inserted your personal attacks into the deletion discussion, with an edit summary that promised "i will raise the issue". But instead of raising the issue, you resumed editing elsewhere - so that is when I raised the issue here for you.

• Alternative fact: you refactored the comments of several editors. --Jobas

Reality: No. I replaced personal attacks as defined at WP:NPA with the (Personal attack removed) template, which was completely appropriate. (Oh, and I moved a question addressed to the nominator -intact- into the "Questions for nominator" section to reduce confusion.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic emptied a category of all of the articles therein and then nominated it for deletion. --Jobas

Reality: Many editors removed the problematic category from articles (not just me - [233], [234], etc.) resulting in an empty category, which Marcocapelle (again, not me) nominated for deletion (see nomination [235], [236]). I reluctantly joined the deletion discussion later, after BrownHairedGirl had talked me out of nominating it for deletion. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page where I "struck" my intent to delete the category.)

• Alternative fact: BrownHairedGirl (in addition to User:Marcocapelle) ... asked him to rollback his unsettling edits (User:Xenophrenic did not comply with this request) --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic did better than roll back his few edits, he listed and linked every article previously tagged with that problematic category, to address Marcopelle and BrownHairedGirl's concerns. (See the actual discussion here at BrownHairedGirl's Talk page.)

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic was recently blocked for attempting to blank an entire section of an article relating to the same topic --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic never "blanked an entire section"; he simply moved a problematic addition of content to the Talk page for collaborative discussion and improvement (see the edit summary of the move here). The discussion of that completely intact content is still here. I was blocked for simple perceived "edit warring" by an admin who was privately pinged to the article, but wasn't informed of the agreement between editors to leave the article in a pre-edited state (per WP:BRD) until concerns were resolved. That admin and I had agreed via email to take his block action to a public Review, before he abruptly retired under a cloud of other allegedly problematic admin actions.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic repeatedly refactored and openly deleted the comments of those who disagreed with him ... Xenophrenic removed the comments of others who thought differently than he did --Jobas

Reality: Xenophrenic didn't refactor or delete any comments, he only replaced blatant personal attacks with a {{rpa}} template, and requested that editors instead raise such concerns at WP:ANI. A quick check of the diff provided by Jobas will confirm this.

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic simply reverted them, although User:Marcocapelle told him this was inappropriate --Jobas

Reality: Marcocapelle did indeed opine incorrectly that removal of personal attacks is inappropriate (see: WP:RPA on removal: where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose). What Jobas fails to mention is Marco advised him "you should discuss this with User:Xenophrenic directly, preferably on their user talk page. If that doesn't help, you could ask an administrator to have a further look. Jobas ignored that advice, ignored my attempts to discuss his concerns, and instead persisted in repeatedly re-inserting his unsubstantiated accusations of "racism" and targeted canvassing of people with "my POV".

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic's racism and prejudical comments, there are many. In one example, User:Xenophrenic wrote the following personal attack: Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? --Jobas

Reality: If there were "many", Jobas would waste no time in producing them. There are none. Look at the one snippet Jobas does cite, in context, and it is clear that it certainly isn't racism, and it certainly isn't "mocking his heritage". Jobas has said that English is not his native language, and my comments show that my concern (and growing frustration) was only that there was a serious communication problem. His comments were making less and less sense:

Your Blainey source doesn't mention "Persecution by atheists", which is what we are discussing here. You say that English is not your native language, so perhaps you have misunderstood what you have read? It doesn't support the nonsensical category you created. Xenophrenic 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English please? We've already addressed the fact that Blainey doesn't convey that there was persecution because of atheism, and your statement "atheism was going beyond communism into persecution by worldviews by other worldviews" has no meaning in the English language. Reword, please? Regards, Xenophrenic 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have cited many sources! What does "provided non" mean? Is that Arabic? Dawkins is a reliable source, of course, until I hear otherwise from WP:RSN. Xenophrenic 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative fact: I also smell some WP:CANVASSING on the part of ... Xenophrenic for his obviously selective notification of the ATHEISM board. --Ad Orientem

Reality: Yes, I WP:CANVASSED, but appropriately and as recommended: When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small and An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: one or more WikiProjects ... The talk page of one or more directly related articles. The category under discussion is "Persecution by atheists", so I placed a notice at the Atheists (redirects to Atheism) talk page. That is the only "directly related" talk page, and it happens to be frequented more by critics of atheism if the discussions are any indication. (Note: I originally went to WikiProject:Atheism to post a notice, but I was greeted with an inactivity banner, and I saw it had only been edited a handful of times over the past 5 years.) On what possible grounds, Ad Orientem, do you cast aside WP:AGF and conclude there was "selective notification" going on?

• Alternative fact: Xenophrenic seems to be on a mission to expunge from the project any suggestion that atheism had a role in the great religious persecutions of the last century or so.

Reality: Xenophrenic doesn't deal in "suggestions" in articles, only reliably sourced information and policy-compliant presentation. Of course atheism is a component of the last century of history; in fact, reliable sources convey that it was a sought-after and expected result in many regimes, and I've never argued otherwise. Your assertion that I'm "expunging" anything inappropriately is absurd, and I must press you for explicit substantiation, please.

• Alternative fact: I notified several WP:PROJECTS of the existence of the CFD discussion including SKEPTIC, HISTORY, CHRISTIANITY, CATHOLICISM and ORTHODOXY

Reality: I have no problem with you canvassing at more locations, because when WP:CONSENSUS policy is followed, head-counts and votes don't matter, and consensus is determined by quality of the arguments - so more people can only be a good thing. I see you canvassed at Wikiproject:Christianity. So did Eliko007, here. Oh, and yet again at that page. Can't have too many notices at the same project, I always say. Eliko007 also hit Eastern Orthodox. I see you also placed one on their Wikiproject page. At least yours are neutrally worded, while Eliko007's notices come complete with disparagement of a fellow discussion participant at no extra charge. Actual violations of canvassing policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Some Conclusions and Recommendations

OK, I've taken a somewhat closer, but not forensic, look at the immediate issues and also the editing history of both parties. At this point I have reached a few conclusions and am ready to make some preliminary recommendations for the community's consideration.

• Jobas erred and breached WP:AGF in his accusation of racism. The evidence is nowhere near sufficient to sustain that charge. I suggest a short, 12-24 hrs, block.
• I suspect but am uncertain that Jobas may have been engaging in CANVASSING in his ping. I suggest he be admonished to exercise greater care when pinging other editors to any discussion where there is a possibility of it being interpreted as canvassing.
• Jobas' longer term editing history reinforces my suspicions stated earlier that he may be here to right great wrongs, especially on the subject of religious persecution. That suspicion is not as strong as with Xenophrenic but it is there. A topic ban may be in order, but I am not certain enough to formally suggest it at this point. I would be interested in reading the views of other editors before going there.
• After taking a look at Xenophrenic's editing history, of which more shortly, I am satisfied that his selective notification of the ATHEISM talk page was clear canvassing. I suggest a short term (12-24hrs) block and that a note be posted on the CFD discussion advising the reviewing admin that some of the !votes may be a result of canvassing.
• Xenophrenic's editing history, and I'm not going to post diffs, there are just too many, strongly indicates a pattern of tendentious, and at times very aggressive editing on the subject of atheism, and in particular its alleged involvement in acts of religious persecution. When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong. It is also worth noting that he has been repeatedly blocked for aggressive editing in the past. On which basis I suggest that Xenophrenic be indefinitely topic banned from both the subjects of atheism and religious persecution broadly construed.
• As much as I hate adding to ArbCom's work load, I agree with John Carter's suggestion that we kick the issue involving categories assigning responsibility for various large scale religious persecutions to them. This is such a deeply controversial topic that it is bound to get heated and draw POV editing.

Full Disclosure: I had an unpleasant interaction with Xenophrenic on the issue of religious persecution in the past, where I felt his editing on the topic of the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Communist period was overly aggressive and lacking in respect for the opinions of other editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Would you mind specifically indicating that "unpleasant interaction" with me, with perhaps some explanatory information as to why you found it unpleasant? Congrats on your adminship, by the way. May I suggest you refrain from suggesting punitive blocks (12-24 hrs)? Blocks should be used to stop ongoing disruption, or prevent inevitable disruption, but not as punishment after the fact. Note that I didn't ask to have Jobas blocked for his accusation of racism, repulsive as it was, and as explained above (and at WP:CANVASS) I did not conduct selective canvassing. Also, if you are going to make accusations like "When looking at his long term record I think the evidence of POV editing on this topic is very strong", you really should provide that evidence. Otherwise, you don't leave the wrongly-accused much to work with. You've admitted that you are involved, and you've further admitted your negative disposition toward me, so I think your recommendations of administrative actions is very out of place. But, to be frank, I'd prefer it if you remain engaged here if there is any chance of us clearing the air and develop any level of mutual understanding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Suicide threat?

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

---

See here. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a pretty blatant suicide threat. Emailing emergency right now (if you did it already, well, it doesn't hurt for multiple emails). SkyWarrior 03:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior: Thanks. I didn't know what to do other than report it here. Adam9007 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Remember to email if this unfortunately happens again, in addition to reporting it here. In the meantime, the IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist. SkyWarrior 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In Hunt's Point, Nova Scotia? El_C 03:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep (here the diff). SkyWarrior 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making the call. Small community, there's a chance there's enough there to preempt. El_C 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I come to think of it, it was pretty dim of me not to think of informing the foundation right away . Adam9007 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Non-Admin closure of an AfD

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

---

Greetings. I recently performed a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Kapil Sharma Show episodes (2nd nomination) and I'd like a 2nd opinion from an Admin to see if I'm in the right. I only ask because an involved editor (the AfD nominator) has undone the closure with a hilariously angry edit summary here. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Have re-re-opened it till your ANI is sorted! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If you genuinely have a problem with the procedural close of a confusing AfD nomination that has had no comments for 8 straight days, then maybe you should take a step back. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have no interest in the topic at all, you should not be close to it anyways. Get lost elsewhere; relisting is something that has already been invented. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the actual closure, but I will say that, if uninvolved, I believe you can't revert a closure of a discussion for the sole reason of the closure not being an admin (see this RfC here). This appears to be the case here, and therefore the AfD should not have been overturned for that sole reason alone. Also, Dharmadhyaksha, see WP:CIVIL. SkyWarrior 03:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That was my understanding too. I'm totally uninvolved and therefore there's no grounds for that response. I'll be restoring the closure shortly, hopefully there's not going to be some sort of silly edit war. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes SkyWarrior! We need a lot of editors like you. I-have-no-opinion-on-the-topic-but-always-have-free-advice-and-let-me-just-give-it-away-here-too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As someone who voted! in the AfD, I'm the only voice in it so far after a week; usually I would ask for a a re-list but Dharmadhyaksha's zeal to get the article deleted needs to be calmed down and they ignored any of my suggestions to clean up the nom, which was non-standard in format and rambled against IPs and newer editors (that might be one of the reasons I was the only one to comment). If you don't like the AfD decision, there are many articles here you can look at. Move on from this one. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you can't re-open a closed AFD. If you have a problem with it, you can go to Deletion Review. That being said, I find the behavior of Dharmadhyaksha troubling, both here and at the AFD and in the edit summaries. A warning to be civil should be in order. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

He's forum shopping now - I've just had a notification of an Edit Warring Noticeboard discussion about this very issue. I think I'll just sit back and watch! Exemplo347 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You should do that always. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: you're getting close to a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion isn't closed. I'm still waiting for an Admin to answer my original question. Exemplo347 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-opened and unhattened; Dharmadhyaksha, knock it off; you can't close a discussion just because things aren't going your way. Discuss and resolve. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User:SoWhy

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

---

user:SoWhy disobeyed an order from the arbitration committee on wp:rfpp. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Adam9007 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom ordered Regularization Bill to be protected but user:SoWhy refused to do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I figured that's what this was about. You may be surprised to learn that Arbcom ordered no one to protect anything - they gave the admin corps a tool to use as they see fit, within a defined topic area. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." So, admin judgement and nothing much to see here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I'm not seeing it. El_C 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So, you just found wikipedia and stumbled right into this, eh? SQL^{Query me!} 04:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] I'm not seeing it either. I also find it odd that this anon also has no other edits yet an intimate understanding of policy and who/what to contact regarding Arb enforcement. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Regularization_Bill --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We need to get a bureaucrat involved here to discipline SoWhy as appropriate. I already let primfac know about the problem. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked. But this will give me a chance to add what I wanted to before the close: There have been past discussions on this, the latest one is here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#ECP_in_practice. Admins have generally agreed that ECP is one option, by no means mandatory, and not always the first option to reach for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Center for Security Policy

Because of his own particular political bias -- which is abundantly clear in his editing history -- User:Motsebboh has been continually editing this article against the consensus determined on the talk page, where his view is opposed by at least 3 editors. The facts are quite clear from the article's editing history [237] and the talk page discussion Talk:Center for Security Policy#The first sentence of the "Controversy" section . . .. The editor's talk page history is also instructive, such as here, where he attempted to denigrate the Southern Poverty Law Center. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it's my understanding that this article falls under the "American Politics since 1932" discretionary sanction regime, and I've personally notified User:Motsebboh of that fact, but it hasn't stopped him from ignoring consensus and editing per his POV. Given this, I also (obviously) am aware that the article is a DS article, so if my behavior on the article or talk page has been disruptive per that DS, I acknowledge that admins are authorized to deal with me according to those rules, which also (obviously) pertain to Motsebboh. I'm simply sick of his continuing bullshit, and wish this to be dealt with, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Gee, I thought I had already responded here but I must have somehow erased it rather than saved it. To repeat: Good, I probably would have brought a complaint against Beyond My Ken soon. His sins are many; he consistently tries to exercise ownership of the article in his bull-headed manner. He claims that my fairly modest, proposed edits are a "whitewash" of the subject. He has displayed extraordinary bias against the aticle's subject as seen here: [238]. He eagerly but falsely claims consensus for his views by convincing himself that the only other editor in the discussion, Dr.Fleischman agrees with him when he clearly hasn't. He then immediately edits the article as he pleases and claims that my protests run against consensus. He reverts any edit I make in the article out of spite, even when they are obvious corrections or improvements as seen here: [239] and here: [240]. He has also taken to stalking my edits by suddenly finding interest in two rather obscure articles, Carol Downer and Mike Burke (journalist), which he had never before edited. In short, he's behaved very, very badly. Motsebboh (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this to be rather revealing. El_C 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Banned IP user has begun personally attacking me

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

---

A banned IP user, User:136.153.18.105, has begun personally attacking me by telling me to "go **** yourself". The user has been banned twice, they have now been banned for six months. Is there anyway to extend this ban for "indefinite"? Pinged @Ad Orientem: because they were responsible for the six month ban. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

Can I ask why you're posting on that user's talk page at all? If they're banned for 6 months, why has your first edit been to pop onto their talk page? A reasonable course of action, surely, would be to leave them alone. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I also note here that the user in question hasn't posted for two days. There's really no reason for you to have started this discussion - especially when they can't respond to it. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Firstly, my IP address changes all the time. I initially told them that they're forgetting the way the term is used in Singapore and other Asian countries as well as in the UK, so it's incorrect to remove the information. I told them to find a credible source for the information they claimed was true and I also told them not to add unsourced information to pages. They replied to my initial message and two days ago they replied to my previous message, so I replied thinking they may have a source. I didn't think they would start alluding to swear words though. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

Well like I said, they're banned for 6 months already. Asking for an indef block just because you don't like what they said on their own talk page seems a bit silly. You could easily just not return to their talk page and carry on editing Wikipedia as if nothing ever happened. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Well the Wikipedia guidelines don't support that behaviour. Last year, I experienced the same thing from a registered user and one of the Wikipedia administrators told me that they believe that type of behavior should warrant a "life ban" and they did get banned for life. Hence the reason I came back. (110.148.124.58 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC))

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

Auapc – disruptive editing

The user Auapc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told a, whole bunch of times what they need to change and they are still at it while not reacting in any shape or form. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries and talk page warnings from Carmaker1

Could some of this user's edit summaries and talk page contributions be reviewed please? I think they are not in accordance with WP:FAITH, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, therefore creating a hostile environment for other contributors.

Here are my specific concerns from recent edits:

• [241] Edit summary is aggressive and insulting
• [242] Edit summary dismisses someone's contributions as stupid
• [243] Edit summary disregards editors contribution on the basis of their previous edits
• [244] Edit summary accusation of "severe WP:VANDALISM", for an edit that does not seem at all malicious
• [245] Edit summary unnecessarily aggressive and accusers others of misleading readers (model year is a commonly used to date cars)
• [246] Edit summary is a personal attack.
• [247] Edit summary accuses other contributors of deliberately misleading readers
• [248] High level vandalism warning a minor disagreement about a fact, with no suggestion of malice in the edit [249]
• [250] As above, warning for this edit [251]
• [252] As above. Not a high level warning this time, but still no evidence of malice in the edit [253]

1292simon (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone probably in the same industry as Carmaker1 (IP may give it away...), he's technically right on all counts. He's being accurate on the real world timing as model years do not reflect calendar years. Eg, just about everything involving Model Year 2017 was baked in by late 2016 and all announcements/reveals/press releases were done last year. Rarely nowadays does a carmaker release a model year in the same calendar year. Only recent one I am aware of is the 2nd Generation Jeep Compass being actually released in 2017 (and that's due to internal delays). I believe he's getting exasperated explaining this over. And over. And over. 129.9.75.190 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, even if it's technically incorrect, it's still pretty understandably a good faith mistake, and sheer volume of good faith mistakes isn't an exception to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. TimothyJosephWood 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries after starting civil discussion

Could an admin please warn Sabbatino (talk · contribs) for their inappropriate edit summaries? After informing them of disregarding WP:CITEVAR on the article The Grinding Wheel, I began a civil discussion on their talk, where they reverted me and told me to be civil, then amazingly, accused me of having "mental issues" when trying to start a discussion with them, then claimed I went "psycho mode". This is a baseless personal attack, which I did nothing to invite. Ss112 13:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond stupid. You were the first one, who showed hostility from your first edit summary. And MY talk page is MINE and I made no personal attacks towards you. Just because you take word-for-word is your problem and not mine. And I CLEARLY stated that I do not wish to discuss with someone who is hostile from the first word. Admins can do whatever they want—warn me, revoke my editing rights for some time—but I did not do anything wrong. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In my summaries on The Grinding Wheel, I pointed out MetalDiablo666 was the first and main contributor to that article, bearing in mind WP:CITEVAR, which I later cited. I also said using date before accessdate was "odd" due to the order in which the two parameters ultimately show up on the page. Then on your talk page, I said you were disregarding a policy (well, a "content guideline"). That was not hostile. Also, you did do something wrong: you attacked me twice ("mental issues", "psycho") for trying to start a discussion with you. Just because it's your talk page, does not give you the right to make blatant personal attacks. Ss112 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: You most certainly did do something "wrong", the two edit summaries quoted above, are personal attacks, and inappropriate behavior. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Your talk page isn't yours its the projects, they are just kind enough to let you hold conversations with other editors there. Amortias (T)(C) 16:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The first diff is clearly a personal attack. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Those summaries were taken from MY talk page and not some article's page. And looks like I wrote "someone" and "people", which are neutral and are not pointed at any specific user. I could have written "f*** off b****" like some other users tend to do, but I did not. It could constitute as hostility, but it by no means is a personal attack. He ignored what is written in WP:BRD, which clearly states that if someone is reverted then that person should start a discussion. Furthermore, I was accused of changing something to "my preference", which is not true. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Everyone understands that you were talking about Ss112 in those edit summaries, for you to try to claim otherwise is not credible. (And that they are from your talk page is irrelevant). Paul August ☎ 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sabbatino, trying to escape the reality of this gross violation of our no personal attacks policy by trying to say it wasn't directed at a user is wrong. Given that you removed comments from a _specific_ user with that edit, its edit summary is clearly and blatantly directed at the person who wrote the material your removed. Accusing a fellow editor of having "mental issues" isn't some sort of grey area with regards to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is a clear, unequivocal, blatant violation of that policy. I strongly encourage you to reconsider taking any similar action in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This dispute has been at the bottom of this triangle

@Sabbatino: @Ss112: The recent editing history of The Grinding Wheel clearly shows the two of you to be engaged in an edit war. This ends. Now. Trying to prove the other wrong via edit summaries, the senseless repetitive reverts and restorations, accusations on talk pages, etc. are pointless. This is going nowhere fast. I note that neither of you has attempted to start a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the FIRST step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Both of you need to stop editing the article, take a breath, step back, go for a walk, do something different for a bit. When you're ready, come back and discuss it civilly at the talk page of the article. If the two of you can't approach this in an appropriate manner, I would not be surprised if an administrator blocked both of you to stop the disruption. Both of you are long term, experienced editors here with clean block records. Both of you know better, and both of you are better than this. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: the edit war you're referring to ended hours ago. I performed two reverts after my first edit to the page, started the discussion on Sabbatino's talk page, but was initially reverted and insulted, then realised it was pointless to continue. Therefore I have no desire to attempt to talk it over on the talk page, or continue fighting over it. The edits I have made to the page since have nothing to do with what the dispute was about. I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't launch personal attacks on anybody, which Sabattino did. Ss112 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm glad you acknowledge it was an edit war. Please have a look at WP:3RR. It doesn't mean you get to perform three reverts for free in 24 hours. Both of you were quite cognizant of the reverts you were conducting and should have initiated discussion on the talk page. I guarantee you nothing was going to be destroyed by the article having one preferred content or the other until you guys hammered it out on the talk page. Not launching personal attacks doesn't mean you didn't negatively contribute to this situation. Yes, you did initiate discussion on his talk page with this edit. You started off by accusing him of lecturing you. This is hardly a friendly way to start off a conversation. I encourage you to start discussion on the article's talk page, where other interested editors can contribute. That's why Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol exists; get others involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Have look at the triangle at right here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I'm well aware of 3RR and that it doesn't mean I get to just do whatever up to three reverts. I misread your first message here as saying I should be blocked already/implying that I had already broken 3RR, which I didn't. As I said, I tried talking it over with them directly and quickly saw that if I tried on the talk page, it would go nowhere, and I don't particularly care anymore to change it back or essentially keep repeating "it makes sense to have date before accessdate because it shows up that way; original style per WP:CITEVAR", etc. I also contacted the creator of the page, MetalDiablo666, but clearly they are not concerned. I understand I didn't exactly word it the most neutral way I could have, but I don't think that in any excuses the personal attack that followed. Ss112 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• ...and Sabbatino has been properly counseled about that above. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

complete revert of several edits without constructive discussion by User:Alexbrn

User:Alexbrn reverted my edits on the extremely biased Big Pharma conspiracy theory here / and here without even getting into a discussion about the matter at hand. Besides, one of his/her first reactions were quite upsettingly unfriendly. Are we possibly dealing with a conflict of interest in this game? Given the references I had gathered, it should be evident that "big pharma" is neither a holdall for the entire pharmaceutical industry, nor are we dealing with a mere conspiracy theory (a notion that is both narrowing and insulting to those who discuss it). Besides, it came as a not-so-mild surprise that big pharma companies have obviously so far never been listed concisely together in a table, like the one I assembled for the neutral article. How can this be deleted offhandedly, without any factual discussion, I wonder? -- Kku 17:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

1) How is this not a content dispute? 2) Please fix your signature per WP:SIGLINK --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You made a page move of Big Pharma to Big Pharma (disambiguation) and created a new article at Big Pharma, and you redirected Big Pharma conspiracy theory to your new article. Both of those actions were contentious, and anyone is allowed to revert them without consulting you first. The onus now is on you to start a discussion about your desired changes and wait and see if you get a consensus. There is no admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Though, on reviewing Kku's recent edits there may be - this seems to be part of a pattern of POV-warfare including recent edits such as link (sourced to the Daily Mail!) making points about the evils of "Big Pharma". Maybe the WP:BOOMERANG needn't be thrown just yet but complaining to WP:ANI straight away over this (without warning me) isn't great. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Edson Frainlar removing speedy deletion tag

User:Edson Frainlar has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag from DMI Foundations Trust after being warned that the author should not remove the tag, although the author may contest the deletion.

History of DMI Foundations Trust

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMI_Foundations_Trust&action=history

History of Edson Frainlar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edson_Frainlar

If an administrator thinks that the article isn't appropriate for G11 or A7, I am willing to go to Articles for Deletion, but an author is not supposed to remove the speedy tag, but to let the admin decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the page in question, as it did not appear notable, nor did it have any sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon The user is no way related to me. If he has any issues in my article, then he can view my article DMI Foundations Trust. No way the article is against the Rules of Wikipedia. If the user again reports such filthy things about my work, I will never any articles in Wikipedia. Because of such people, many writers are being disappointed. Right from the beginning he is reporting against my article even before the submission of the article. (talk), 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, vandalism, gaming the system

Editor Zakariayps is very disruptive and continues to vandalise and try to game the system despite ample warning from editors such as here, here, here, here, here,  here and here. Example of vandalism here and here, here and here. Clear attempt to game Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection on this page.Kzl55 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)