Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953

Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Men's_rights_movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what this admin's problem is.

He has been very antagonistic whenever I edit Wikipedia Men's Rights.

Being a new user I am learning to make valid edits and discussing it within Talk: Men's Rights. Recently, Jim1138 undid another user's contribution with "No reliable source" as the reason. Given that the source was from the FBI, I undid his edit and cited what source it was. EvergreenFir then undid mine stating that the post is not neutral citing WP:UNDUE

I then undid said edit, and mentioned to take it to Talk: Men's Rights to discuss

Bbb23 then came in and reverted it once more and stated: " you're very close to being blocked, if not already there " then put me on probation here: Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation#Notifications

Under said reasons it states: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

I don't believe I have been disruptive in anyway, I have not launched personal attacks and don't believe I have been uncivil in any way and I don't assume anybody has bad faith.

Ultimately EvergreenFir did indeed discuss the issue with me in Talk: Men's Rights and this is what transpired:

The linked 96 report is referenced in ref 184 in that same section. Synth concerns seem unfounded. Arkon (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It would have been nice if that was referenced then... if we're gonna use that state, attribute it to the source. "NCFM notes that ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Now given that I was placed on probation for no reason in my eyes, i decided to post here. Within this page it specifically states:

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

When I did so, I received this:

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Bbb23, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not posted in or harassed him in any way with the exception of the notification.

Flamous7 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing was very very bitey from the start, not a good look. Bbb23 also isn't exactly acting purely in an administrator capacity on that page, so probably best not to be threatening other editors with blocks there. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit in question (without diffs, it's hard to say, but I think it's about this addition) looks seriously POVish to me. Given that the actual range percentages is given in the same paragraph, adding this vague-but-sinister-sounding bit does nothing but create a false impression of rampant accusations of rape. Considering that I'm apparently not the only one ([1] [2] ) who thought so, I think this was a bad edit that needed to be reverted. I also think it's a good idea to, you know, listen to admins when they try to explain how WP works. Also, regular users throw around threats of being blocked all the time. Since admins are regular users (with a mop), I'm not really worried about a threat of blocking. Hell, I get threatened with a block at least twice a week and I've been doing this for years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: This edit supports that whole "POVish edit" hypothesis. I suggest that an editor whose POV informs them that feminist literature is, by definition "biased" and "highly opinionated" might want to steer clear of feminism-related articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be a bit fair, that page is historically a notorious shit magnet. However, I agree it was bitey and this was a rare (but heartening) case where some patience and a keen outside eye helped resolve the situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What? Your comments have left me with more questions than anything at this point. Where did Bbb23 "try to explain how WP works", where in that edit are you seeing this "by definition" stuff? Arkon (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I used to patrol the MRM page a LONG time ago and enforce the community sanctions that had been imposed. However, it got to be a thankless task, and I largely let it go and let the experienced editors and the new editors hammer things out. Still, it remained on my watchlist, and occasionally I intervene. It may look like I'm acting in a non-administrative capacity, but actually I'm not. I really have very little opinion on the movement or the rather controversial and tangled issues associated with it. What I try to do is to assist in enforcing consensus. In this instance, it looked to me like Flamous7, who is a very new editor, had an agenda and was edit-warring against consensus, so I reverted. The edit summary was a bit aggressive, but that was because I mistakenly thought I had alread notified Flamous7 of the sanctions. I apologize for that part. When I realized I hadn't, I did so. Just like with arbitration sanctions, it's an alert and implies no wrongdoing. It says so in the notice. As for Mlpearc's revert on my Talk page, I understood why they did it because Flamous7 hadn't yet started a thread at ANI. However, it wasn't necessary. OTOH, Mlpearc's only warning about harassment was over the top. Flamous7 had done nothing to deserve even a mild harassment warning based on their conduct toward me. I think that's all I have to say other than I'm glad things were resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If I would have an Agenda it would have to be to put more legitimate/valid information onto that wiki. This is my starting point, but it is not and will not be the only wiki I contribute to. As you already know, given the formatting, referencing it takes a lot of time to contribute to Wikipedia correctly. As a newcomer I appreciate everybody's patience and guidance and will not give up in making sure I learn the correct/proper way to contribute to wikipedia. Flamous7 (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quinton Feldberg bot editing to bully people

Resolved

 – IP editor blocked by Drmies. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a detailed edit summary of the reason but giving no kind of attempt to talk in response Quinton Feldberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just bullies with an edit bot constantly either ignoring or pretending to not notice (because of bias) the talking in the edit summary

Instantly deleting edits, doesn't even talk just bot edits even when someone's talking and clearly not just a vandal, it's because of mindlessly authoritarian bullies like this I stopped using an account years ago --2.121.244.204 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I've noticed is that you have kept making red links by adding brackets in front of and behind various page links. There's no need to add them before and after names. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what with the triple brackets, IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• The complaint is of course nonsense--as for the triple parentheses, most of the people the IP graced with those parentheses are in fact Jewish, which is why I am blocking them pronto. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies. I had the same thought but the first couple of people I checked had no mention of them being Jewish and we usually see parentheses instead of brackets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

These were triple parentheses. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You know, it's 2017. We have free schools available everywhere, and access to the greatest encyclopedia ever--but we can't beat stupid. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You can if you have a stick. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A stick or a hammer? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

True. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Duh. Goes off to clean glasses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:The1337gamer ignores my discussions and humiliates me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there, I would like to report User:The1337gamer. I have had various edit disagreements with him, but ultimately, I agree with edits because he's more experienced with Wikipedia then I am. However, that should not excuse his rude behaviour towards me in which he's intentionally ignored a discussion that I started with him regarding his rudeness with me. For example, he interrupted a discussion by assuming that I have "A tendency to not bother reading instructions", without understanding the full context of my post. He's also insulted me personally whilst I was in the process of modifying the Template:Bandai Namco hardware template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) −

Welp, I can't help but notice that I don't see that you notified them of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the lack of diffs backing your statement up... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I have notified The1337gamer for you but without diffs showing the problem it is unlikely any anything will be done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an old dispute, and I'm not seeing anything like what you're describing Iftekharahmed96. The Bandai Namco hardware template dispute goes back to December 2016

with nothing any more recent than that. The only discussion I see between you two also happened on your talk page and it appeared to end amiably enough. I see no evidence of any interaction between you two after that, so unless I'm missing something, it looks like this is an old dispute and it should be closed up as such.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Will close when OP gets a chance to see/comment in 12 hours or less. L3X1 (distant write) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the dispute itself, rather its this user's tendency to act hostile towards me. I just used that particular dispute as one example of his behaviour. He intentionally ignores me when I want to have a serious conversation with him and that's concerning because Wikipedia is a community driven website. All I ask is that he treats me with respect and respects my point of view. So far, he's treating me like a joke of an editor. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not rude, I did not attack you, and I did not make an assumption. I made an accurate observation based on [3], [4], [5] and previous encounters. In fact, this ANI you've opened further bolsters my observation because you did not provide diffs and you did not notify me of the discussion, therefore you did not bother to read or follow the instructions at the top of this page. If you're humiliated by what I said, then maybe you should re-evaluate your own behaviour and editing habits. You are reporting me because you don't like my tone, but have you ever considered how yours is perceived by other editors? Every time you get reverted, you seem to take it as a personal offence and start blindly reverting. Your attitude towards other editors is awful at times. In this diff ([6]) you asked GB fan to stop taking the mick because they rightly reverted you for incorrectly following deletion processes. GB fan then explained to you why your edits were reverted and they directed you to the correct instruction pages to learn how to properly complete your task. GB fan was being helpful and giving you advice and your reply to them was that they had ridiculous bias which isn't at all what they displayed. ([7]) And then, as usual, you run off to get another editor to intervene by presenting them with misleading statements that try to favour your side of the argument. Let's not forget one of your previous attempts to get an uninvolved editor to initiate an edit war with me by telling them that I was making so-called "incorrect" edits ([8]), all while I was trying to resolve the content dispute in a discussion that was already taking place. Even when I told you not to request other editors to edit war with me, you somehow took offence to what I said, completely ignoring your own actions as though they were perfectly fine ([9]). After GB fan opened the RfDs correctly on your behalf and deletion was unanimously opposed, your remark to him just shows off your childish behaviour even more Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. ([10]). Rather than trying to understand the other side of an argument or in this case, simply Wikipedia's deletion policy, you treat the dispute as a game that you must win at all costs. Your attitude is terrible and you're not going to get anyone to collaborate with you if it continues like that. Re-read the comments, which you consider to be a serious conversation, that you posted on my talk page ([11], [12]): You open with a with a rhetorical question stating that I am rude. You say that I barged into a discussion as though I did something wrong; I am not prohibited from posting another user's talk page. You take an aggressive tone by demanding that I explain myself. When I don't answer immediately, you threaten to report me. You were trying to bait me into an argument, not a serious conversation. My comment on you not always reading instructions or following deletion processes properly was completely valid and not hostile in any way. I'm not humiliating you, you're doing that yourself. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm humiliating myself? There you go again, that's a personal attack. Running with assumptions as if you know who I am personally. I'm honestly disgusted by your confrontational attitude towards me. The way you present yourself, you sound as though you have a superiority complex over me. I've had differences with other editors, but I've been able to eventually come to an agreement with them. Heck, I'm very collaborative too, and I like to learn from more experienced editors. You're the exception to the rule because you're rude and you like to humiliate me when the opportunity strikes right for you. The quote Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. wasn't even an insult. It was me admitting that GBFan was right. I even apologised to him and ensured that I'll take his edits over mines next time. This is what your assumptions (to a discussion that has nothing to do with you, mind you) end up doing. Is it too much to ask that you talk to me with civility and not someone starting a flame war in a YouTube comments section? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Good job not reading almost the entire of my post and trying to badly twist specific parts to paint me in a negative light. Love how you choose to ignore all the evidence I provided of your own uncivil behaviour just so you can write more nonsense about me. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented that indicates that The1337gamer requires a warning or other admin action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So is this a free pass for him to keep personally attacking me? Because all I'm asking is for him to have some empathy and talk to me in a negotiable manner, not an authoritarian manner. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not been personally attacking you. We have two disputes in the past. One was a content dispute which was resolved through discussion, even after your attempt to mislead other editors into edit warring with me. The second was a speedy deletion that I opposed. I explained my opposition on your talk page and gave you instructions to carry out the deletion properly. But you continued to blindly restore the CSD until another editor declined it. Pointing out that you don't always read instructions or follow deletion processes properly is not a personal attack, especially when that is what you continue to do. You actually don't seem to realise that I was the editor that prevented you from getting blocked when you were accused of being a sockpuppet ([13]). --The1337gamer (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, all I'm asking is that you should consider the way you phrase things before you say them. Something that you may think may mean no harm, may be interpreted negatively by someone else. I appreciate that you were one of the people that supported me when I stated that I wasn't a sockpuppet, but that was at a time when I recently joined the Wikipedia as an active member, and it wasn't exactly the most warmest welcome to be accused of being a recently banned user just because I coincidentally edited the same articles as they did, so I couldn't really identify as to which member was which back then. I'm all for having my mistakes pointed out, and learning from them. Please just don't poke at my personal abilities or inabilities whilst doing so. I've said my piece, hopefully something came out of this. the respective moderators can decide what to do with this discussion from this point forward. Apologies if I've caused any unwanted disruptions to everyone involved in the conversation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Havenx23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since starting an account in Nov 2016, this user's sole focus has been changing the first appearance of Gambit (comics) and now Wolverine (character). After a discussion at the Comic project talk page, he continued to change against consensus without sources for three days before disappearing. He reappeared in March with the same behavior. I reminded him of the prior discussion on his talk page, and he vanished again for a month. He reappeared recently doing the same thing, and another polite warning from me resulted in a wall-of-text that ended with a declaration that he will not stop until he gets his way. He has since continued to modify the articles. Based on this comment from last September where he uses the word "buying" to explain his point of view, I believe he may be a dealer who is trying to profit from misinformation on Wikipedia. This issue is not limited to User:Havenx23 and has been discussed on other articles as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The user's response to the ANI notification includes a personal attack. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• User has not edited for 4 days, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Class project at Ancient warfare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several editors making large additions to the article. A bit seems ok but there's a lot of unsourced material, an OR comment about begging the question, and I'm not sure about the total impact on the article. I can't do much on my iPad and we really need to find their teacher. Help would be appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to redact it; I tried, but it was just too much to fix at once, with too many unsourced and undue claims. El_C 08:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing some possible copyvio, too, for the first edit that I let stand (Naval warfare)—someone should look into that as I am signing off. El_C 09:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The instructor for this class is listed as Ieremu and Tokyogirl79 is associated as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both. Editing in a moving car on an iPad is chancy, so I stopped. And of course on my PC or laptop I can highlight and right click to search Google easily for copyvio, not that simple on a tablet. Hopefully we'll hear from the editors associated with this project. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me! I've admittedly been editing predominantly under my WikiEd account more than my main account for the time being, so I missed this initially. I'll message the professor and contact the students over this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There's been a good post by Tokyogirl179 under her WikiEd account at User talk:HistoryisKing so hopefully this will be resolved. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TateMandume

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked by Nyttend. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since WP:CCI is all but abandoned, I'd like to point out TateMandume's clear lack of understanding of copyright laws here for a quicker response. Despite a clear warning being given, TateMandume continues to claim copyrighted pictures as their own and uploads them to Wikipedia, as seen by their 15+ pictures deleted due to copyrights. Would an administrator mind looking in to this issue? Thanks. — Chevvin 02:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've currently gone through the liberty of CSD'ing or fair use-ing the offending pictures still uploaded. However, there appears to be two pictures left (1 2) that I appear to be unable to find online using a quick Google search. — Chevvin 02:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted those two (what are the chances that they're good when nothing else is?) and blocked the user. Thanks for coming here with this information. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was the person mentioned above who gave that warning. I agree with the block. The user has made no effort to correct their actions nor to communicate with us on these issues. They've just plowed ahead with more problematic image uploads. Of the images they have uploaded that are still remaining; all have either been tagged for deletion via some mechanism or, in one case (File:NamibiaPremierLeagueLogo.jpg), properly tagged and in use. One image is curious though; File:Stadion Kuisebmond.jpeg. This image was uploaded to the German Wikipedia back in 2010; see de:Datei:Stadion Kuisebmond.jpg. The version here is identical, including the metadata. The original source of this image is claimed to be the person who uploaded the image in 2010. Regardless, the image is not in use here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

TateMandume has been indef'd by admin Nyttend. Slasher405 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Paid editor Janweh64 moving own drafts to mainspace, again

Moves of rejected drafts to mainspace by Janweh64 were discussed at this board in February. While all agreed that such moves are not actually forbidden, the editor was given a good deal of advice by various admins, including this: "You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft."; this: "bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace" (same editor); this: "it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead"; and this: "his COI has clouded his judgement". Since then, the editor has:

• twice moved Draft:Aviv Hadar to mainspace, the second time after I had moved it back to draft, and with the (partial) edit summary "Moved per WP:IAR"
• moved the declined draft Draft:Oncology Care Model to mainspace with the edit summary "Moved WP:AfC-declined article per WP:IAR"

and also directly edited pages such as Robert C. Hilliard (attorney) and Keck Graduate Institute where he/she has a declared paid relationship.

Question: what form – if any – of discouragement is appropriate when an editor refuses to heed guidelines or listen to advice, and cites IAR as a reason for ignoring them? As far as I'm aware, WP:IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia, not about ignoring rules in order to improve your bank balance. (Note: This is about behaviour not content – I've not examined the merit or otherwise of the articles or edits in question.) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest sanctioning user, starting with a short block—but will refrain from doing so until they've had a chance to respond. El_C 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

<To the invisible voices:> What? IAR! *** Seriously though (and I wasn't joking before), is there anything that can be done to discourage this, short of blocking? Warning clearly doesn't work. What other sanction is there? Move-protecting the pages maybe? El_C 10:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read 1, 2, and 3 before rendering judgement. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nuke the whales?—→Gotta nuke sumthin'." I'm glad you're doing good (albeit paid) work, but you've been cautioned before against editing and draft-moving directly. So why not simply heed that advise? Plenty of editors out there willing to assist, I'm sure... El_C 10:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), who originally rejected the article has since reviewed and patrolled the article: Oncology Care Model.

My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. See: [14], [15], and [16]. I have tried using WP:AFCHELP to no avail. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose when the system is failing you, IAR isn't such a bad alternative. Still, I would hope for better checks on paid editing—editing directly feels intuitively wrong to me. El_C 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do the articles meet notability standards? If they do, clean them up from any other issues. If they don't meet notability standards nominate them for deletion at WP:AFD. If they are deleted then they are deleteable again G4. ~ GB fan 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, otherwise moving them back to languish in draft is tantamount to deleting them with no consensus. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• A few things: IAR requires that a rule exist in order to break it. WP:COI is a best practice guideline. It is not policy or a must-be-obeyed rule. COI explicitly does not say people with a COI cannot under any circumstances edit articles they have a COI with, because despite many attempts the community has consistantly failed to make it say that. Janweh is also under no formal editing restriction from doing so, beyond the same 'you shouldnt do that' that already exists in the COI guideline. Given the diffs they have posted in reply above, I dont see a problem. If the argument is 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with that are overly promotional' that would be an issue. If the complaint is solely 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with' you need to demonstrate *why* that is a problem. Or open a discussion at WP:COI in order to amend it to forbid the practice. Good luck with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to dive in - the drafts created by this paid editor should be forced to go through the Articles for Creation process before they become live articles. Why hasn't this been done, or even suggested? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been, the user says My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. El_C 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I get for diving in. @Janweh64: if you don't feel that an AfC review was fair, you can resubmit the draft with a comment such as "Request that another editor reviews this draft" and it'll happen. AfC reviewers aren't biased, most will just happen to randomly review your article having never read it before. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the previous ANI, I have voluntarily and under no clear obligation have started using AfC. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. But in some cases AfC reviewers fail to recognize a notable subject, perhaps clouded by my COI. Like I have said above with examples I usually accept their judgement. But in some case where I strongly believe the subject is notable, I take action to move the article as is my privilege under WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I even invite the reviewer to nominate the article for AfD.

For an example of how my paid editing is beneficial to Wikipedia please read: Draft:Don_Reitz. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If people don't see that a subject of your article is notable, the onus is on you to prove them wrong. You're a paid editor, you have to abide by WP:PAID and not just take it on yourself to move your drafts to article space. Please work with us, or find another way to make money. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:PAID only states, "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." I follow that policy strictly: See User:Janweh64. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest actually reading it - including the sentence about editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with. To put it simply, the general consensus is that paid editors have an inherent, non-neutral point of view regarding subjects that they are being paid to edit. Create your drafts, submit them, and then walk away. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Please read WP:PAY (not just WP:PAID). The usual process is through the AfC or edit request process. If you have been through that, and you still think the reviewer was really wrong, you can bring your proposed changes to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where the community will review your proposed changes. -Obsidi (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• support 1 week block. COI management has two essential aspects - disclosure and peer review. The 2nd is essential to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia in light of the bias that a COI creates. Moves of articles to main space by creators after they were rejected by peer reviewers is rarely acceptable; it is not acceptable in the case where a COI is present. This is not a case where IAR is inappropriate. Janweh I advised you earlier to behave in ways that are of the highest standards. The community tolerates paid editing, it doesn't love it. The more you do to create a bad reputation (for instance here by ignoring peer review) the harder your role here becomes. It is just self-destructive, as well as harmful to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read: WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Simply reaching a consensus on whether or not a COI editor has the right to move an article from draft to articlespace is sufficient to prevent further disruption.

A quote from WP:Policies and guidelines which, unlike WP:COI, is a policy and not a guideline: "Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something." It is easy:

• An editor with a COI with a subject may not move a draft article to the mainspace or create a new article on the subject in mainspace.
• change "are very strongly discouraged from editing" >>>>>>>> "should not edit"
• "may propose changes" >>>>>>>> "should propose changes"

Otherwise, you are punishing me for declaring my COI religiously when 1000s of others are right now editing with no declaration. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This path of acting aggressively in order to support your paid editing and then arguing fiercely to defend your aggressiveness is just going to lead to an indefinite block per NOTHERE. None of the volunteers here want to waste time any time at all dealing with this, which is just about you making money. Don't you get that? What little patience people have, you exhaust by doing this. There are some paid editors who disclose what they are doing, and who "get it" and create no drama and they add value to WP. You could have been one of them, perhaps. Not what you are choosing... so be it. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I will step back. Please just give me clear guidelines. And I will abide by them. The previous ANI only offered advice.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You have them already. The way out of this particular hole is just to say "Hey, I get it. I am sorry. I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. Again, my apologies for creating drama. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. " Something like that. but mean it, and do it, and don't do stuff that causes people to drag you here.Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur w/ Jytdog. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of the new changes/clarification here by Jydog on March 13 to WP:COI, I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. My apologies for creating drama, again. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. I was truly unaware and not informed of these changes to this guideline specifically made after just a mere 20 days from my previous ANI, which was archived unclosed. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Janweh your response promises that this particular problem will end, which is a good thing but the rest of what you write there is argumentative and... horrible. The prior ANI thread from only two months ago was also called "Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace" and in that thread several editors told you the same thing you have been told here.

In other words, every single editor who commented there and here wasted their time. That is what you just communicated. That you are going to treat WP guidelines and policies like "rulebooks" that you will exploit as hard as you can in order to make money here, and you will ignore community feedback.

That is nothing like what I advised you to write. You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This user is nothing like you appear to portray them in your above statement. "You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was." They have declared COI and they are following policy/consensus to the best of their understanding. You have "won" here, I do not understand your apparent hostility nor your apparent failure to AGF. IMO this should have never been brought to AN/I (where it wastes our time) clearly (IMO) just having a discussion on the user's talk page would have sufficed. You are also a good faith editor just trying to protect the encyclopedia from POV pushing paid edits. I agree with your sentiment, just not the methods that have been used and are suggested to be used here. No editor should ever be blamed or even punished for wasting time because they were dragged to AN/I instead the peer doing the dragging is at fault if there is no real problem [wp:broke] that needs to be addressed. Personally I think this AN/I needs closed as all "problems" have been addressed and an agreement has been reached; based on their agreement to this. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I took the time to speak off-wiki with Janweh earlier in their paid editing career, when they were editing aggressively to try to get their paid edits into WP, and arguing aggressively that it was OK for them to do that. I explained to them then, that paid editing is just barely tolerated by the en-WP community. I explained that if they want to create a sustainable presence here, they should be rigorous in disclosing and submitting for peer review, and always work peacefully and without drama, and of course generate really high quality content with high quality sourcing. I explained that working this way would increase trust and respect for them in the community, and make their life easier (and to be blunt, more productive and more prosperous with regard to their paid editing). Everybody wins that way. And I explained that the lower the quality of their work, and more aggressive they were in trying to get it into WP, the more their work and behavior would be scrutinized, and the slower and harder everything would get for them, etc.. That the community loses with time wasted on the drama, and they lose (less productive, less money made, and heading toward a NOTHERE indef) if they go down that path.

Now this issue of moving their own paid articles to mainspace has arisen again. The first instance was semi-understandable. That this 2nd thread exists at all is hard to understand, as is the slipping back into the fierce arguing to justify marginal behavior. That this 2nd thread ended with with them making a wikilawyering argument half-justifying that this happened again, is bad for them. It is on the path where they lose.

I do agree that this thread should be closed. I still hope that Janweh has the good sense to strike and make a more clueful statement before that happens, but if they choose to let it stand, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC) (added a bit w/out redacting Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC))

British Israelism

This article is under a constant assault from believers of the ideology who can't seem to take "no" for an answer when Doug Weller gives it to them. Would a round of admin warnings or even topic bans be out of the question?

I'm serious, the entire talk page except for the first section is from the last month. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of specific editors, you need to name them and provide diffs to back up your complaint. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect admins to do anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if an admin were moved to page-correct here, we would need to look at the behaviour of specific editors if we hoped for any lasting resolution to the issues. However, a quick perusal of the article and talk page demonstrates the the OP/IP is not being altogether histrionic in claiming that there are major issues there; most of the threads of that talk page demonstrate a whole lot of activity from some inexperienced editors with a limited understanding of Wikipedia sourcing standards, neutrality principles, and the requirements of encyclopedic tone.

That said, I'm not sure if there is a whole lot of behaviour that I would describe as per se WP:Disruptive. I've seen no evidence that the inexperienced editors are doing much that is improper, other than being really, really persistent while also being really, really wrong. Maybe there has been edit warring or other behavioural issues that did not become immediately aware to me as I moved through those threads, but if not, I'm not sure we are at a point yet that requires administrative attention. There's only a small number of editors contributing right now and though I certainly feel for Doug as he attempts to keep this situation in check, if the only obnoxious thing the "believers" are doing at present is being long-winded in advocating for their approach, I'm not sure what is to be done at this point. I think we need more perspective on the issues here before we can consider any course of community action. And even then, RfC might be a better first stop, before ANI. Doug Weller, any additional thoughts? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dear IP, the non-specific and WP:DIFF-less nature of your report means that this thread is just going to get ignored. You yourself have never edited either the article or its talk page. If you are merely wanting "admin eyes" on the article, Doug Weller is already monitoring the article, and he's a big boy and can handle things. It's also worth noting that the OP has had an enormous amount of warnings in the seven months he has been editing [17], mainly regarding the Israeli/Judaism subject area, the most recent warnings being yesterday and the day before, so perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Foks, WP:DOLT tells us that a complaint about an article should be taken seriously, even if the complaint includes legal implications (WP:NLT). In the same way, there is no need to pile-on to the IP unless some examination of the issue has occurred. I have been watching British Israelism for a while and a glance at Talk:British Israelism shows it has a massive WP:SPA problem with 426 edits this year, compared with 329 edits in the previous thirteen years. I wanted to help but have been driven off by the blizard and Doug Weller should not suffer alone—obviously he's not there for recreation. Attention to the article and talk page is needed, although how to get that attention is unclear. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The page was also the subject of edits by socks for quite a while - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive, but that's not a current problem. At times this last week or so I've thought of giving up but some more editors have joined in. It's not just this page, British-Israel-World Federation is being edited by its president, and a move request I've made at Talk:British-Israel-World Federation has had only 2 responses, one from the president (as an IP but making it clear in his edit summary who he is) and the other by the secretary of the Victorian branch who has also been busy creating new articles. The editor this is mainly about is User:Wilfred Brown. Although he uses quotes from policies, guidelines and essays and their acronyms, I'm not convined he understands them. Right now he's looking for a 'neutral' source, one without bias that doesn't take sides. I think he may mean that doesn't mention the anti-Semitism and racism that has been part of the movement and that spawned Christian Identity, which is really hard to avoid by any acdemic studying the subject. He recently commented saying that some of the text is "filling up the article with info about 'Christian Identity' to the point where Christian Identity should get it's own page. .. Oh wait". See also his response to User:Agricolae at Talk:British Israelism#Central tenets redux. On the other hand it has always been a bad article and he's spotted some terrible sources that have been removed. But at the same time he wants to use self-published sources, telling us that the Bible was self-published. I'd better stop now or the malware that crashed my first reply in Chrome might move over to FireFox. Neither Norton nor MalwareBytes have solved it, a mess. I'll go make sure Wilfred Brown knows about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just recalled something I'd written in Chrome saying that it would nice see this resolved without sanctions and without other editors giving up in despair. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, as the new editor in question, I admit that I'm totally green when it comes to editing Wikipedia, however, I have read many of the policies, and have a much better understanding of how things work now. I like to believe I make valid points on the talk page. Are they numerous? I don't know. I do know the topic itself is large, and 100s of books have been authored by British Israel adherents over the centuries. It's not my intention to promote anything, but having read many of those books over the past 30 years, I do recognize that this article is grossly lacking information on the subject, and is unbalanced towards it's critics. It's a little better now, but has a long way to go. And as I stated, I only want to see a clear version of What British Israelism is, and how the adherents came to those beliefs. Then add all the refs to counter those views. You won't see me deleting any of it unless they violate Wikipedia policies. But endeavoring to get to this point has been a non-stop battle. For a recent example; There's was a section 'Theological claims that assert a racial lineage'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Israelism&diff=777403948&oldid=777390438 It's nearly incomprehensible, and raises points unrelated to the title. But, it's completely unreferenced. It's been sitting in article since before 2012. I said 'it needs to go' in talk, nothing got changed, so like you say, be bold, so I deleted it with 'WP:V Violation 'All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable'. But it was reverted a short time later by Agricolae, without any references. It took a third party to agree that it needed sources. However if I add a line or topic, and the reference I use isn't considered good enough, it's often deleted within minutes. So completely contentious, unreferenced posts can sit there for a decade, but try to add a well known and understood British Israelism belief, (which is the majority viewpoint on the page, right?) well, be prepared for a battle. One thing I was completely unaware of was that a little sarcasm or suggesting that there's bias gets you dragged here. I'll keep that in mind. Wilfred Brown (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wilfred Brown: No one dragged you here. You were being discussed by others who didn't name or notify you about this discussion, and I thought it courteous to let you know. I didn't drag you here at all. Yes, I commented on my view of the problem your sarcasm, but I didn't say you said there was bias, the word "bias" was used in the context of the sort of source you wanted, and it's fine to say that there is bias. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(since I have been accused of . . . something?) All I wanted was a little bit of time (by which I meant less than a day) to improve the text that had only been flagged for concern just a few days earlier along with over a dozen other passages - fixing problems does not happen instantanously. So, I reverted a single time, and when I was reversed by a third party that was the end of it, at least for me and I turned by attention to trying to forestall further deletions of newly-flagged material. That this interaction should be turned into a cause célèbre, prime evidence for some grand design to present a biased view of the topic, seems disproportionate. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why then do you not show the same courtesy to new edits? Wilfred Brown (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained in much detail on the Talk page both time I reverted or removed new information and I see no good coming from playing this out again here in ANI, where it really isn't relevant. Anyone interested can look at the Talk page and the edit history. I don't anticipate the servers crashing from everyone rushing to see. Agricolae (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And just to add, an example of how messed up this article is, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of British Israelism itself. I've been collecting a list on the talk page. So far we have 16 different definitions. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not an issue with the article. that is an issue with BIism and the fact it is not a unified movement or organisation. This is one of the issues that I am seeing, edds who want to try and make it seem like BI believes X when different "branches" disagree on it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, where in the world are you getting legal threats in the OP? I've read it several times and as far as I can tell it's just a standard "need eyes/help on this article" post. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the confusion—legal threats are not relevant here! When I replied, three editors had commented, each pointing out that the IP had not identified specific issues or editors or diffs. My comment was to say that DOLT tells us to consider a complaint even if it violates NLT, and in the same way it is obvious that the IP is reporting a real problem, even if the report violated the norms of ANI. By the way, the topic of the article is extreme WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a serious issue with POV pushing by edds with COI, but (as Dougy points out) at least one of them has also made a few valuable edits.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

High school redirections by Alexander Iskandar

This editor has unilaterally redirected a large number of high school articles without prior discussion. Now, most of these do have deficiencies in sourcing, and indeed may not be notable, but there appears to have been no real effort to find sources and, at a minimum content should have been merged rather than a straight redirect. Though I could revert these changes that way lies edit warring and I should welcome a broader discussion. I have also notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Just Chilling (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's important to pay attention to messages in your talk page, folks! Anyway he should state why he is redirecting them so we can find ways of rectifying the problems. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like his intentions are good, but all the same this is highly disruptive. You can't just go around mass-blanking articles, especially in a unique subject area that is usually included by default. The redirections should probably be undone, and I've warned this user that they're dangerously close to a block. Unfortunately, they don't appear to be a very communicative person, so I'm prepared to block if they don't heed the warning. Swarm ♠ 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange edits by anon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure it is vandalism so I thought that I'd report 100.11.70.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. Anyway the anon keeps adding making questionable edits to various pages related to the Super Bowl. Not sure a block is warranted. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam-blacklist Admin needed

An Admin familiar with the Spam-blacklist is needed at this page. The link econlib.org was blacklisted as part of an anti-spamming effort. The original lister has gone off of admin status, and the admin who usually handles de-listing requests made comments about the merits of the link and request. Accordingly, s/he feels s/he should not touch the request. The vast majority of comments about the blacklisting have been in favor of de-listing. The particular website is sponsored by a noted and respected think-tank, and it has original material from noted economists, including Nobel Prize Laureates. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Replied at that page. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My stalker's latest IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.150.50.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just need someone to block them and revert their edits. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Reverted Can't help with the blocking part, though. DId you try AIV? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 by NeilN. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

203.17.215.22

Continued vandalism[18] mixed in with many productive edits after multiple blocks and warnings.[19] IP belongs to State Library Of Victoria,[20] probably a computer open to the public. Also see edit filter.[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. Only one obviously disruptive edit, and all the hits on the edit filter are pretty stale. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

School/Range Block Request 169.241.60.*

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's been some vandalism coming from 169.241.60.* (see range conribs for diffs) the past two days. This appears to be part of Clark County School District according to the {{Shared IP edu}} on one of the IP's page. Requesting block. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Let's see if it starts again after that. Strange one, because there aren't any contribs in 2017 before yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I limited the contribution range to just the past two days in that link as that was where I saw the disruption. Here's a range of contribs since the beginning of the year. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah my bad - I read it as all contributions for 2017. Regardless, 95% of the edits are vandalism, so no problem there. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that the school district actually has all of 169.241.0.0/16, according to whois, so a /24 may not catch it all. On the other hand, narrowest scope that blocks the currently active vandalism is also fine. Murph9000 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A school district with a /16? No wonder we ran out of IPv4 addresses! Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions by Auntieruth55

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) has attempted to apparently link me to an off-wiki account in this post to the WP:MILHIST noticeboard (diff) (revision deleted). This was done as part of an on-going dispute on this board and borders on harassment. Shortly before posting to MILHIST, the editor added a comment to the ANI above (ANI/Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89):

• I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. (diff) I note that the editor chose not to post the link here at ANI, but instead did so at MILHIST.

For prior comparative attempts, please see ANI archives:

• Attempted doxing by IP (DGG has stated: Anyone who continues to play games to see how close they can come to doxxing will be blocked.)
• Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime

The user has subsequently removed the link from MILHIST, but not the commentary: There apparently rewards for spiking the project, too. Just saying... but anyone curious about the "reddit link" could retrieve it from the article history. The editor pretty much suggested such on their Talk page, while acknowledging that the link was likely problematic:

• I was told that it would be like "outing" or harassing someone, so I deleted the link. Sorry. and If you've got the skills, I suppose you could go to the history page.... (diff).

The user has recently posted commentary across multiple noticeboards targeting me. This post to MilHist apparently refers to me (Unilateral deletions and massive changes of FA articles), but I was not notified: It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction... (diff). On this thread (Unilateral deletions, edits, etc. of Good and Featured Articles), created at the same time & addressed to me, the user commented:

• This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want. (...) The intent is quite clear.

There was no response to my question about any specific objections. I thus consider this discussion to consist of unsubstantiated aspersions, while no dialog has been offered. Since then, the editor has found the time to post multiple times to the MilHist thread and this noticeboard.

The user has previously accused me of conducting a crusade (multiple times) (sample diff), arbitrary editing articles simply because [I] do not like [them] (diff), being disruptive (diff), obstructionist and in defiance of Wikipedia standards ( FLC discussion) and anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! (diff). Please see also: the discussion at NPOVN.

The editor has continued to do same at the ANI thread linked above, referring to my Talk page posts as a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies which is allegedly a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue (diff). Also at this ANI, after I've requested the editor to substantiate their claims of me being engaged in incessant bickering, the editor responded with:

• I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. (...) Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. (diff). The editor has not been able to substantiate these allegations, but have not retracted that statement.

I'm asking the community to please evaluation this pattern of behaviour. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Had Auntieruth55 not themselves removed the material upon being alerted to its nature, I would indeed immediately block. If Auntieruth55 continues to interact in a negative spirit, it will be difficult to consider that posting accidental, and I will block. This should not be taken to preclude whatever action the community might want to take to deal with more general issues involving that editor or others.

I hope that this discussion and the related ones will be carefully noticed, because after this I do not think anyone involved in these disputes could be considered unaware. Everyone should know that it is considered as very serious misconduct to refer to off-wiki discussions that might even possibly identify another editor; if it rises to the point of harassment, it will almost certainly lead to an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The possible attempted doxxing is not on, and I am glad that auntieruth has removed the material. Anything approaching doxxing must be stamped out. However, the "casting aspersions" idea is just another example of the wikilawyering, pointy behaviour and relentless and TLDR threads by coffman defending his style of editing and complaining about people who don't find it helpful to WP and have told him so. I consider this tendentious behaviour that makes editing unpleasant for other editors, but based on past interactions, I have no hope coffman will stop. I have taken to avoiding most areas being edited by coffman because they are so unpleasant. At some point they have to take some responsibility for the effect that their editing style has on other editors. This complaint (less the doxxing issue) should be ignored. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard. I think most of us are mature and perceptive enough to determine what to ignore ourselves, thanks. (In case it's not clear, it seems highly improper for an admin to pick sides by justifying allegations and then making a further attempt to cast stones.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard

So, you don't hang out here very often then? Or are you conflating "should" with "order"? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

what most admins would have done was block, especially because this site has been previously linked to in this connection twice, each time from a different editor. I was in fact considering an oversight block. But I almost never block if I can possibly help it; I prefer to give warnings, and I usually word them as advice. I have no desire to judge the behavior of the different editors here--I explicitly said that just above. I think almost any other admin , upon seeing the previous warning ineffective, would have proceeded to block. But I prefer to think the ed in question here may have been unaware of the seriousness, and I give the benefit of the doubt yet again. I'm not an admin because I want to enforce the rules by sanctioning people; I want to enforce the rules by guiding people, and I'm an admin because the ability to use sanctions if necessary can in practice sometimes make the guidance very much more effective. If I do have to block, I will regard it as a failure. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reported incident, about a page mentioned before and reported by the same person before (surprise) clearly was no doxing at all. During the respective discussion several people had brought forward criticism about the project WPMILHIST; and all Auntieruth55 waid that there apparently exists an exterior discussion about the project, too. He didn´t mention Coffmann in that post or the followup; the only "pattern of behaviour" is that he was part of that discussion again, the repeated disturbance of the project's work and the repated reporting by said user. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• As an editor involved, I didn't ever see the MILHIST post, just what was on the noticeboard, and am the editor Auntieruth replied to on the talk page. (I never saw the final comment about history) If GELongstreet is right, than there is no doxxing involved. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• The material involved had been oversighted twice in the past. I agree with DGG that the initial removal suggests this was unintentional, but the talk page reply to L3X1 on her talk page is the definition of trying to get around our rules on outing and harassment. Telling a fellow editor how to see material that has been deemed oversightable in the past is not okay. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've struck part of my statement above based on the replies here. I agree with DGG and Peacemaker that anything approaching doxing by linking off-wiki accounts is not good, but think it was done without malice in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

response from Auntieruth

• I'm the editor who posted the reddit link and when I was told that it was not a done thing, I immediately removed it. Never heard of "doxing" (still not sure what it is). While doing some online research about the sources involved in the content dispute that underlies the discussion, I discovered an exterior discussion of our ongoing conversation (about military personnel in the Nazi era) with detailed instructions on how to get involved, how to use wiki guidelines against wikipedia, and generally how to disrupt the military history project. The instructions were not just detailed, but outright invitations to confound the project, and contained links to the intro to wiki pages. There was also considerable ridicule of our good faith efforts, some self promotion about a vandal's cross (which I've never heard of), and instructions on how to get involved in sabotaging the project, starting with WWII German Luftwaffe bios. Some editor--I don't know who it was (well, I know the reddit name, but will not mention) --had actually bragged about the disruption that he or she was causing, and named at least 2 wikipedia editors by user name. If this is being done by (an)other wikipedia editor(s), then I wonder if it is violation of WP:NOTHERE because said editor(s) would clearly not be here to build an encyclopedia but to promote an agenda and for self-aggrandizement. Is this something that should be investigated? If so, not by me. It needs someone higher up in the food chain, with higher pay grade, and seriously better internet skills.
• As for posting instructions from me to another editor on how to find "stuff", that's laughable. You can refer to conversations that are still ongoing in a previous ANI complaint (I cannot find it) that I am basically clueless about how to post differences. Eggishorn actually questioned whether I intended to post the differences I posted, and s/he is right, I'm not sure. When I get it right, it's sheer luck. I should take some lessons from a few people here.
• As a WPMILHIST coordinator, I'm very willing to help develop guidelines on "reliable sources" for potentially contentious material but I am not willing to do this in the face of a phalanx of editors with an agenda to limit the project's scope and subject matter. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, given that nothing posted in any of the relevant Reddit threads contain personal or identifiable information, I fail to see how this even remotely approaches doxing. I say this as someone who has actually been doxxed, to the point of having harassing material sent to my place of work. Which is to say, let's not pretend this is anything more than it is. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree—I've just wasted a chunk of my life I'll never get back reading the thread in the Link So Serious It Needed To Be Revdeleted to see what all the fuss was about, and there's not a whiff of outing, doxing etc anywhere that I can see. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth55, I accept your explanation that the link was not posted with malicious intent. However, the on-going pattern of casting aspersions still concerns me. For example, could you please point to the phalanx of editors with an agenda?

It seems the only editor that the MilHist coords are concerned about is my person, while anyone who happens to agree is part of a "tag team". Please see the other ANI thread on this board, where one such claims remains unsubstantiated: User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel &Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89.

Likewise, the only disruption that has been mentioned before is me again: We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level diff. Please also indicate how I've attempted to limit the project's scope and subject matter. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised I wasn't notified of this discussion given that it touches on one of my admin actions (revision deleting the edit under discussion here after I was alerted to it by email). I didn't think it was necessary to block or admonish auntieruth given that she'd removed the link as soon as the problems with the edit were brought to her attention. As auntieruth is is by any standards an editor in good standing (elected Military History project coordinator, lead editor of multiple FAs, clear block log, etc) it appeared to me to be an error rather than anything malicious. In retrospect I guess I should have also left a note about this on her talk page. I'd suggest that the editors involved with the underlying dispute here (the representation of Nazi German military people) take a time out, and resume with some kind of centralised discussion rather than having it out article by article given that the current pattern is inflaming things and leading to disagreements among a group of excellent editors. 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote this? An extra tilde was typed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Nick-D did.

This should be closed, clearly Auntieruth55 did not post the link with any malicious intent and as pointed out above, removed the link herself after being told it was not appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, posting a link that contains no personal information is not doxing. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PerfectlyIrrational aka User:EthnicKekistan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remember PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) from here and here? His sole focus, unsurprisingly, has been on White nationalism topics, ginning up thin articles on non-notable figures and organizations (Colin Robertson (activist), Lana Lokteff, Identity Evropa) and on "riots" before they even happen (2017 Patriots Day Riot, 2017 Auburn Riot.)

Now, he's ginned up another one -- 2017 Pikeville Protests -- and the only thing he seems to have learned is to not begin with "riot". I really really don't think he's here to build an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty sad that you recklessly and falsely accuse me of being a white supremacist based on your personal instinct. If you had paid attention, it was simply a misnaming of the subject at hand due to unreliable firsthand news reports, along with the fact that I didn't know how to move the article at the time. The Pikeville rallies are well-documented and reached the top of multiple mainstream news today. Not everyone who edits articles about controversial topics supports the controversial topics within.

I'm assuming this is well-intentioned, but I would of preferred you spoke to me privately instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

...instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist

And I would prefer you not make things up, since I did no such thing. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

He's been here two weeks, made 324 edits, 257 of which are in article space, 25 of which have been deleted (mostly articles he's created), and been reverted thirteen times. He's a major contributor to the 2017 Berkeley protests, Brittany Pettibone, Alt-Right and even one of the larger contributors to PewDiePie. Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area. If no, close immediately. If yes, is it substantially more concerning then; he has a secret agenda to promote white nationalism. Yes, he's doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations as ... well, white nationalist organizations. Really, the most gauling thing in that edit is that he's used buzzfeed as a source. Which is controversial, been relitigated many times at WP:RSN and at last check was good enough. My opinion; we should not block, ban, or otherwise revoke editing priviliges from any editor for choosing to edit in a controversial topic area just because it's a controversial topic area. If there's a problem with the articles he's creating, knock him off to AfC or TBAN him from creating articles. I don't think there is, as yet, a problem with their article creations. They are a brand new editor. I have limited expectation of competency by week two. Eight articles created with two currently deleted and two redirected is not a great record admittedly. There is, however, nothing that I have seen from the links presented above to say that he's not here to contribute. This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I about EK/PI. Note that I'm mighty suspicious of this new editor's intentions was the opening statement you made on the last one; the community decided that concerns over the username were, however, merited. At this point in time, I am not convinced (at all) that this is worth administrator time to intervene in. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area.

Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of making something up. It'll give you a better handle on things. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I...

So? You yourself admitted -- though you buried the lead and someone else obscured the issue by censoring my original heading -- that my complaint had merit. So the point of whinging about how this is "second time" I've brought this to ANI is what, exactly, other than FUD? --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Calton, you accuse me of failing to read what you wrote, then proceed to fail to read what I did. Case in point; You yourself admitted ... my complaint had merit. I did no such thing. I said the community decided that it had merit. I personally, and you can find this on the public record, do not think that the RfC/U was merited. Furthermore, the community did not find your filing to be merited, but, held a general concern over the username itself. Your first case at AN/I was to comment about an editors name, then cast an aspersion about their motivation for editing and then ask whether you were being overly sensitive. It was somebody else's idea entirely to go to the RfC/U noticeboard. That something came about from your first complaint, does not entail that your complaint specifically was merited. I don't know what FUD is, I'm guessing that it's Fear, uncertainty and doubt. No idea what relevance that holds.
Secondarily; the sum of your new AN/I filing is IMHO one of two things. Either (almost inconceivable) 1. You're not satisfied with the articles that PI is writing and have concluded therefore that PI is NOTHERE. Or (far more likely) 2. You've noticed a pattern of contributing to white nationalism topics, including creating articles many of which are subpar, and are propping up your unease with a NOTHERE argument. Now, and I repeat myself but with expansion for clarity, [d]o you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area, one which is not self-evidently borne out of your unease at their contributing solely to such a topic, but, have not provided satisfactory evidence to suggest that they are a white nationalist, a propagandist, or a NOTHERE editor. Any of which, I would posit, could be rationally argued to be a cause to block. None of which, I do not think, has been demonstrated as yet. If you hold concerns, which I can understand (if you would believe that), then feel free to monitor their contributions. I still think you should leave them alone personally, but, I am in no position to give commands. However, there should not be any action taken without some cause beyond personal "gut feeling". If it isn't clear; I am less concerned about what you "really really think", I care only that you are now twice dragging an editor to a noticeboard for no discernible reason besides your gut instincts hiding behind the veneer of lacklustre content. I am requesting a centilla of evidence that they are genuinely not here to contribute (sub-par articles and a focus on one topic is not evidence of NOTHERE; CIR with regards to article creation maybe but we're not at that juncture yet). I have already advocated that no action be taken and this thread closed. I stand by that recommendation regardless of whether you think my "less than one and a half years" tenure is sufficient to make one as such. Now, if I am grossly mistaken on any of my comments, please tell me what and where and I will endeavour to correct myself. I'm not entirely sure that you care about me doing that, I'll endeavour to do it anyway. I also note Evergreenfir's comment down below about disruption, I'll look for it and if I find anything I'll post it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So, I've gone through their talk page as well as several complete articles where they are editing. Most of the notifications on their talk page are about deletion requests. Two are about RfC/U. A number of notifications are concerns over specific edits (including two false flags) and one, the most pertinent one, is about a recent edit-war over an infobox at 2017 Berkeley protests in which five people were involved. Though only PI hit the 3RR mark and risked a block. Never a good sign for a new editor to have that many notifications on their page so soon. That said, their conduct on article talk pages and generally in the articles I've gone through isn't really disruptive, contrarian and somewhat clueless sure. The edit-warring is the single most pressing issue and even the warnings for vandalism are on closer inspection not an accurate summation of the facts. The "fuck Antifa" edit was bad though, even if deferring to intent. That's all I've found. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr rndude: I'm uncertain if you're speaking ironically or not. If PerfectlyIrrational is "doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations", then he needs to be told to stop, immediately. See WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV. If he's only been here two weeks, he probably shouldn't be editing articles in a controversial topic area, let alone creating them: see WP:CIR. We may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that doesn;t mean that just anyone should edit in certain areas unless they have a good deal of experience under their belts, have good judgement, and aren't here to promote an agenda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of the article Lana Lokteff, could an admin please check to see if the current article is substantially like the one that was speedy deleted in March? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies BMK, I forgot that sarcasm and irony dont translate well in text. Yes, I was being ironic. I dont see an agenda or promotionalism in their contributions. Thus, I have zero reason to think the accusation of nothere to be merited. Hope thats shorter and clearer. I disagree with your assessment of where one should edit. There are different learning curves for different topics, to be sure. However judgement and experience are completely separate. Much experience does not mean good judgement and of course vice versa little experience does not equate to poor judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And that's why I said that one should have experience, good judgment, and no agenda to edit in sensitive areas. It appears to me that PerfectlyIrrational is missing at least the first two of those, and possibly the third as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• The odor of footwear is strong, to be blunt. But without an SPI, not much to do there. This user, however, had been informed of the WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions. Given their disruptive actions in that topic, remedies like a topic ban under your discretionary sanctions seem appropriate. If this user is truly "here", they'll edit constructively in other areas. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Who or what is EthnicKekistan? User or otherwise. It sounds familiar, but I can't place the reference. El_C 06:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: was a recent user but the name is in reference to the 4chan /pol/ meme kek. The name was on RFCN recently too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The phrase 'kek' originated on World of Warcraft, where Alliance and Horde characters were not allowed to communicate, and thus their text was shifted. lol became kek when viewed from the other party. --Tarage (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: See recent discussion at RFC/U. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a way to require this editor to submit articles as drafts for review, in lieu of blocking or banning outright? 2017 Auburn Riot and 2017 Pikeville Protests pretty clearly fall under WP:NOTNEWS (though the latter just got sent to AfD and might still survive), but 2017 Patriots Day Riot evolved into the somewhat substantial (though hotly contested and currently fully-protected) 2017 Berkeley protests. Funcrunch (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  Re-reviewing the history of 2017 Berkeley protests I see I was mistaken; that content existed independently of 2017 Patriots Day Riot. Funcrunch (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• As a card carrying, bleeding heart, politically correct, tree hugging, trans- and homo-sexual supporting, socialist, Trump hating, "colorblind" libtard who thinks it's always okay to punch a Nazi, I had a serious problem with PerfectlyIrrational's previous user name, but a look over their actual edits results in no particular concern about POV pushing. Yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good day admins and fellow Wikipedians! I am really condemning what Hollyckuhno (talk · contribs), where she didn't respect the ruling regarding the requested move I've made (Boyband PH -> BoybandPH *per common name* *also 1, 2, 3) last January 19, 2017. Pinging the supporters of the move, SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Tavix (talk · contribs), and Fylbecatulous (talk · contribs) and the admin who closed the request, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). She reverted the article's name back to "Boyband PH" without raising another request move and I think, she needed to be sanctioned for disrespecting the ruling. I just don't get her logic on her naming standards/guidelines reason (same goes to [i Want TV], where the website itself and Google news search result stated it is "iWant TV". Well, if we would apply her naming standards/guidelines reason, then iPhone, iPad, and iPod would be like "I Phone", "I Pad", and "I Pod". ~PogingJuan 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Alternativity (talk · contribs) has also complained to her talk page regarding the move from KidZania Manila to Kidzania Manila where it must be "KidZania". ~PogingJuan 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And not to mention the user's "apparent" conflict of interest. Most of her contributions are/were affiliated to ABS-CBN (even majority stakes of KidZania Manila is owned by ABS-CBN; articles stated on my complain are ABS-CBN-related; majority of the user's photographs displayed on its page are ABS-CBN-related; the user made a userbox about being a proud ABS-CBN viewer and Kapamilya (ABS-CBN brand name)), but I think it does not matter to my complain. ~PogingJuan 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I see that after more than six months, PogingJuan still hasn't managed to wrap his head around the difference between an interest in and/or bias toward a subject and a "conflict of interest". Editing articles related to a company does not mean one is employed by that company or otherwise affiliated with it in any way.

That said, the move of BoybandPH back to the pre-RM title was out-of-line and should be reverted. The KidZania Manila move appears to be a little greyer -- it was not a counter-consensus policy violation, but apparently a good-faith misunderstnding our naming conventions, if even that.

Hollyckuhno should be warned about the inappropriateness of this behaviour, PogingJuan should be trouted for not warning them (instead jumping straight to ANI) and making a bunch of weird off-topic remarks about COI and such, and the projection of Hollyckuhno's counter-consensus behaviour onto another user clearly not guilty of the same in another thread further up this page.

And this thread should be closed, of course.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), I never said that that user has a bias on those articles related with ABS-CBN or its corporate, because as far as I can see, there were no neutrality issues on how that user edited/contributed. That's also why I said that that does not matter. Also, I've put there the word "apparent". Just like when majority of U.S. voters expected an "apparent" Hilary win (also due to her lead in popular vote), but it was Trump who won the elections. Back to the topic, although I haven't warned Hollyckuhno on her talk page, two of the users have complained/queried already about her actions (one about BoybandPH by ValarianB (talk · contribs); one about KidZania Manila by Alternativity (talk · contribs)). The user didn't reply on both complaints so why should I post another complaint on her talk page where I think she will not reply, just like he/she did. Well, the following list is regarding the renaming of BoybandPH.

• Nominated the move from Boyband PH to BoybandPH as per WP:COMMONNAME
• Closed as moved by BrownHairedGirl
• BrownHairedGirl moved the page from Boyband PH to BoybandPH as per RM
• Hollyckuhno, without any RM and considering the closed RM, moved the page back to Boyband PH as per naming standard?

Thread to be closed? Not now, I think. Hollyckuhno needs to defend (him/her)self first. Then, if good-faith misunderstanding, as you said, was the cause of pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion, then the user must be trouted for him/her to understand and respect policies on making an RM or discussion and common name. Also, it is given that my requested move was a contested technical request. ~PogingJuan 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@PogingJuan: Please stop accusing other users of COI just because they edit some article on some topic, and may have some kind of bias. That is not the definition of "conflict of interest, and as noted above this is a recurring problem for you. In this case, you appear to be speculating about the real-world employment situation of the user based solely on his/her having edit two articles related to the company. This is a potential violation of WP:OUT. Please stop it immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: The moment I have strikethrough my previous comment about apparent COI does mean that I have reversed my statement. It meant I have stopped my speculation. My opposition for the thread to be closed that s/he must defend is regarding the move and only the move of the BoybandPH article. Now, please also stop bolding words (except if voting) as it may also be a potential violation/interpretation (for a lighter term) of WP:SHOUT. ~PogingJuan 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen that you had stricken the comment in question. I saw your ping of me, in which you defended your repeated misuse of the phrase in question. If you seriously acknowledge that you were wrong, then it's not enough to game the system by striking your comment to shut me up, while continuing to engage in the problematic behaviour. You have to acknowledge that you were wrong and stop the problematic behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that my question on the KidZania Manila page was intended to be a friendly query, not a complaint. Not that I'm arguing for either side here. I'm only saying I am not familiar enough with the overall behavior of the editor in question to be able to form an informed opinion, and the characterization of my comment as a "complaint" is somewhat inaccurate. - Alternativity (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted. ~PogingJuan

Ah yes I had forgotten about posting on the talk page. @Hollyckuhno: can you explain the BoybandPH move? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem at all if the majority of the users wanted the name to be reverted to BoybandPH. I did not know that there was a consensus about the naming of that particular article. I should have checked it first before requesting for uncontroversial technical move to admins. I have no intention of violating any guidelines. Maybe I misunderstood the guideline about naming articles. That's all I can say about this issue. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted. After Hollyckuhno have admitted about misunderstanding guidelines, I am now requesting this ANI thread to be closed, with Boyband PH be moved back to BoybandPH as per the consensus of the contested RM. ~PogingJuan

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

My name is Sabrina Alvarez and I’m encountering a problem with another Wikipedia user.

I was asked to update/edit Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her assistant and I have access to her most recent information on her bio. All I did was go in and make a few corrections such as actual dates and information on her page, as well as updating her image. I’ve pasted below the conversation with the other user(s), As well as a note from Maria Elena Salinas herself, who is requesting this issue gets resolved, and if there is anybody we can contact that will take care of this situation.

I would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible, please advise. If it's true that I can't make any edits myself, who can I give the factual, relevant, and up-to-date information on Maria Elena Salinas so that her Wikipedia page is relevant and up-to-date, as well as with an appropriate picture for her profile?

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also inaccurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikipedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of.

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hi Vanamonde93,

I was instructed to edit/update Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her personal visitant and most of the information was outdated including the image used (which she did not like). I really need to go in and make those edits that you deleted, therefore please do not delete again or revert any of the edits done. You can of course go in and include information (if factual) but do not delete.

Based on the information I shared with you above, I will be going back into her Wikipedia page and once again add all the information that was deleted.

If you have any further questions let me know.

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the reply below. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also innacurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikepedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of. Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabrinaalvarez: Greetings. Please keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page, and so you need to exercise great care with your editing, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Your biography is covered by the policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, any information in it is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which is how we verify the truth of any facts on Wikipedia. If there are facts which are incorrect and/or not supported by reliable sources in the article about you, the best way for you to go about addressing this is to post to the talk page of the article with your concerns. If this does not work, or if your concerns are very serious, then the best thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, which is meant to help with situations like this. Finally, please remember that according to our policy on a neutral point of view, your article needs to be written based on how you are described in reliable sources, not how you choose to describe yourself. At the moment, this article fails these policies quite badly: we shall have to see what to do about that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)== Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page ==

Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture?

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinaalvarez (talk • contribs)

@Sabrinaalvarez: Maria Elena Salinas and her assistant need to understand that the article about her is not theirs to shape as they see fit, and that they both have a serious conflict of interest with regard to it. In addition, the assistant, who presumably is paid, is probably in violation of our policies on paid editing. As pointed out, saying that "[we] have access to her most recent information" is not helpful, since such information needs to be verifiable.

Here's what they probably should do: since they are in possession of the most up-to-date information, that puts them in a position to find that information in reliable sources. They they should put the information, and the source, on the talk page of the article, and another editor will look it over, check the source, and add it to the article if they think. They should not edit the page directly, because of their COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little worried there's a bit of a CIR issue here, because I have given them the same advice; twice, in fact: and they do not seem to have gotten it, and have posted the same questions here instead. They have also coped the entire conversation from my talk, including three postings of the same question; and despite all this, have failed to go the talk page of this article. I have neither the time nor inclination to mentor this user, so if somebody does, that would be helpful. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Think we may have a legal issue with Run (video game)

Resolved

 – No legal threat has been directed at the Wikimedia Foundation. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Player 03: has flagged what appears to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (video game). Under the circumstances, should we speedily blank? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The actual legal discussion was made off-wiki, so I don't know that linking to it would fall under WP:LEGAL, especially since the person linking it is the one being threatened, not the threat-maker. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is none of our business. It's not our job to collate external claims in some kind of dispute and use them to cast doubt on the release given us by the editor when he/she clicked SAVE. Anyway, even if the writer's not paid the client/employer may get the copyright anyway, depending on the exact facts and jurisdiction.

No one's made a threat to us so there's nothing to do here. EEng 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to do here?! You mean we've closed down the wikiwatersports park and boardwalk? And the arcade? And the theater? Awww, man. Now I'm going to have to spend all my time editing...And cracking corny jokes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"The article that I have attached has not been paid for, and is my Intellectual Property". As soon as you post it here, it isn't. Their argument is irrelevant to enwiki, and perhaps just shows some of the issues attached to paid editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

According to that section of the Terms of Use, "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it" (emphasis added). Bridget Pringle claims to be the copyright holder, and she was not the person who uploaded the article. I'm no copyright lawyer, but if her claim holds up, I believe that means the person who agreed to the Terms of Use didn't have the legal authority to make that agreement.

That said, I agree with EEng that no one's made a legal threat to Wikipedia, so it's a moot point. Player 03 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, who has the rights may well depend on the details of the applicable law, including Australia's. If this was all in the United States, then the question would be whether there was a work-made-for-hire agreement; under such an agreement, the copyright would belong to the party hiring the writer from the moment the work was created; it does not get transferred upon payment. As such, even if the writer got stiffed, that does not mean that the copyright was not in the employer's hands.... to the best of my not-a-lawyer understanding. What I'm really trying to show is that the question is not so simple. Having said that, if this person has put forth a reasonable claim that the post infringes, it behooves Wikipedia to remove it for now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I've reached the end of my not-a-lawyer knowledge, so I'll stop discussing what-ifs.

The page is on its way to being deleted for notability, but if it's kept, I'll follow up with Ms. Pringle. Player 03 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with NatGertler. If they are the person who created the article, then they agreed to license Wikipedia to use it when they hit save. If they submitted the article to their would-be employer and that person created it here against their wishes, then ownership of the IP will depend on the terms of their work agreement. Wikipedia is not a party to that agreement, but if they have a credible claim to copyright they should considering contacting OTRS. Or they can wait a couple of days, as the article seems likely to fail its AfD. Sympathy for their predicament should be tempered by their apparent status as an undisclosed paid editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is she an undisclosed paid editor? If they didn't post this article, then they are not an "editor" at all in this case. And if we don't know what their username is, we don't know if their other edits (if any) disclose their paid status. In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to assume malfeasance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, Black Kite (because I'm in the mood to be a knowitall tonight) even after an editor clicks SAVE they retain copyright on the text. But please, can we close this now? Notability is the only issue, and that's being handled elsewhere. EEng 04:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a series of discussion about this issue a while back... here, here, here (long and involved). TL;DR: User:Moonriddengirl, who is the one ask, said basically it is about "agency". It doesn't matter who owns the copyright (and it does indeed technically remain with ExxonMobile Inc. or whomever, just as technically I retain copyright to my contributions here) the material is irrevocably licensed under CC-by-SA, and the person hitting "Save" automatically has "agency" to release it under this license (providing they're doing it at the copyright holder's general behest). The copyright holder does not have to agree or understand that they can't revoke the license. Telling their employee "write this in Wikipedia" is enough to give that employee "agency" to commit to the license. Or something like that. It gets much more involved but that's the nickel summary.

"Not getting paid" could affect the copyright (I guess) but not the license. The CC-bs-SA license is irrevocable when made, if valid at the moment made, I've been told. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• As an external contractor (completely unrelated to wikipedia), almost all of my contracts while classed as work-for-hire also specify that in the event I am not paid, I retain all rights to my work which may not be used without permission. This is entirely standard in fields where you create work for third parties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on the city of Fafe

Resolved

The wikipedia page on Fafe, was edited with some severe vandalism, the names of the parishes are wrong, including one of the parishes is named "Cona da prima", that means "Cousin's cunt" in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silveringking (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been fixed. I couldn't identify the vandal to see if further actions are necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a previous version that was unvandalised and copy/pasted the list as a fix. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like random IP vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Intervention needed: vandalism on The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle

Resolved

 – Drmies has protected the page, and returned to their life of crime. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps socking and vandalising the page. I've reported all of the IPs to WP:AIV, but no one is responding. Someone block all of them and protect the page, please! Jdcomix (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry--me and the crew were out breaking windows. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it appears to be a bunch of school kids complaining about the novel appearing on the AP English Literature and Composition exam this year... 185.188.6.168 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppetry on MADD

Resolved

Wow, tonight's a bad night it seems for vandals. POV pushing vandal IP hopping on MADD, please put an end to this madness. Jdcomix (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I protected the article. Neutrality^talk 04:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Insulting people who cannot spell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure if this is a violation, but the response I am getting was rather nasty, and they did ask (literally) for this, so here we are.

It started over at talk pizzagate as (he thinks) friendly banter. it involves ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs)

It started with him telling another user not to be sarcastic (and hence I assume not to ridicule) [22], valid comment, but I ask that we do not reply to the user anymore as he has said he did not wish to continue.

There is a bit of back and forth over a cut and paste mistake [23] (last comment before the dispute began).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs) then posts this [24].

I then respond by pointing out that mocking does not help debates [25], mirroring his earlier post. It can be argued we are still in banter mode, but it is (I think )obvious that I do not consider his actions acceptable.

He thin posts this [26].

I am (by now) getting a tad annoyed at someone who seems to think that mocking (what maybe) a leaning difficulty is acceptable. So I point this out [27] (ohh and I did not click the link because I do not need a lesson in how to cut and paste, I have now but it would not have changed by annoyance at something I do find unacceptable).

He then comes onto my talk page with this [28]

I respond by explaining what I find objectionable [29], I do make one mistake in it (accusing him of making another users edits, sort of), but (as you can see) he still made mocking edits over multiple posts (he just did not do the one thing I was thin king of), so I stand by the basic statement. His assumption was I do not have a leaning difficulty (in this case dyslexia), but I know more should have to "defend" my disability then any one else should by having to say "please taken into account I am...when communicating with me". Or having to label myself in order for people to not resort to mockery, I am not proud of it and do not wear it as a badge of honour.

His response was this [30], not only a refusal to understand why someone might consider (even unintentional) mocking leaning difficulties is unacceptable, but also a blatant PA.

Being thick is a disability that has clinical acceptance. It is as much a disability as being in a wheel chair. It is no more a choice then being black (which it can be argued is a social disability, as learning difficulties often are for not wholly dissimilar reasons). We would not expect a black man or a cripple to list this fact for us to be expected to (as a matter of course) avoid jokes that mock them.

I find ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants (talk · contribs) dismissive and belittling attitude offensive. I find his tendency to "mock" (not just me) problematic and nonconstructive. I found his double standard annoying. Mockery should not be targets, mock yourself by all means (hell even engage in banter) but when someone says "this is too far" you should stop", do not inform them that "I was only having a laugh, aint you got a sense of humour", next time it might be someone who has more serious problem then me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(Haven't looked into this, but the user in question is User:MjolnirPants). Fram (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you made a typo (cut and past instead of cut and paste), Mjolnirpants made an inoffensive joke about this (not about you), which he labeled as a joke. When you responded badly, he pointed out that the comment was not sarcasm, it was intended as a lighthearted joke. For some reason, you felt the need to continue on and on about this. He didn't mock your spelling abilities, he made some minor, lighthearted fun of a typo which created another meaning. Not a brilliant joke, but nothing to get worked up about, certainly when they clearly indicated that no sarcasm was intended. People should not insult others, but people should also not look for insults where none could be realistically found in the first place. That Mjolnirpants ended up dismissive of a situation of your own creation seems only natural to me. Fram (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Fram beat me to both of the points I wanted to make. I'm sorry, but, disability or no, copy-pasting someone's signature and using it to ping them in place of their actual username is ... well, it's actually more difficult to copy-paste a link than to copy-paste the bare text at the top of his user page, so Slatersteven apparently went out of his way to do that. I don't see any legit insults in the above diffs. And yes, if you make a humorous misprint, it is within the bounds of acceptable behaviour to poke fun at you in a playful, good faith manner, and MP went out of his way to make it clear that he was making that joke in good humour. Slatersteven is the one who took it over the top, and posting it to ANI is just more of the same. I say close with a hefty WP:TROUT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri's phone here. It's doing that thing again. I was assuming good faith before, and when I checked his user page and saw that there was an explicit notification of his dyslexia, and so was working under the assumption that MPants had been a bit of an unfortunate dunce not to check for that before poking fun at what looked like a misprint. But reading the discussion below I got suspicious and checked: it turns out that was added after this incident was instigated by Steven, and he has been gaming the system by amending his user page to make MPants look like the bad guy ex post facto. And he chose not to disclose this critical part of the story in his long OP comment about medical diagnostics and historic discrimination. This gets uglier the more one reads, and I'm wondering if a TROUT is really what is called for here. 106.133.134.54 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) I've looked over each of the linked revisions, and apart from the very last one, which I think was probably ill-advised, none of Mjolnir's comments were intended to belittle anyone. The "past" vs. "paste" bit was a lighthearted joke; the assumption there, which Mjolnir himself confirms, is that it was a typo on your part. That you were dyslexic wasn't something that factored into the equation beforehand, and I really think you should have emphasized your condition before accusing Mjolnir of mocking you. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Normal internet behaviour from both the OP and MP. Close report, perhaps trout OP for being a jerk, and move on. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've worked with MP before and once made the mistake of not following the joke link, so I didn't get at the time. I am just about fine with everything until this: ROFLMAO You are so full of sh*t. Tell you what. Why don't you post that example to ANI and see how far that gets you? Seriously. Even though I'm a clown I think thats too far. The ROTFLM*O part is OK, but the rest of the sentence ?!?!?! How is that supposed to be funny? Forgive me for being over sensitive, but it looks like a direct insult. A few days ago MP said he gets warned every week, so If he hasn't gotten his dose, he can self-administer from the pharmacy. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Kurtis and L3X1 here, specifically, telling somebody they are "so full of shit" was not the appropriate response, doubling down on it by inviting them to post it to AN/I just makes it worse. Trout both, and close. This was really a minor thing that escalated too far. Like a certain San Diego anchorman. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that I launched this ANI only after the last response on my talk page.

By the way, the cut and paste was because it was already in my cache form a previous reply.

As to the rest, you would never says to a homosexual "I think you should have emphasized your Homosexuality before criticizing that gay joke" (by the way are you aware of just how much effort goes into a small post like this? to be mocked for mistakes goes beyond just insulting). This is my main point, people should not have to explain themselves to be treated with respect. Also it was not a typo, it was a spelling mistake (why does everyone here assume it was a typo?). You do understand that when you type a word wrong spell checkers does not always give you the right solution (but if you cannot see letters you might well pick the one that "looks right"? That due not make it a typo. Moreover even after I explained my condition his response was not "sorry I was not aware of that" but "shut the fuck up" (in effect. Maybe I should have been "more conciliatory" and tried to "understand" his position better, after all "don't I have a sense of humour?".Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I contend without reservation that when someone implicitly accuses me of bigotry for making (what any reasonable person would clearly understand to be) an attempt to introduce a little levity and lower the drama level, immediately after chiding me for not "respecting [another editor's] wishes" while simultaneously failing to respect that editor's wishes themselves, which was in turn a response to a post in which I apologized to said editor for something I'd previously said, and then doubles down on that by citing a single example of me and another editor mocking the most out-there conspiracy theories as an example of me "having a habit of" mocking individuals, and uses that as an excuse to launch into a long winded personal attack against me...

... that "full of shit" is a perfectly accurate description of said editor's contentions throughout this. Now, "full of shit" may or may not be a typical state for Slater. I tend to think not because I've seen him make intelligent comments before. But in this case? Yes. Every allegation, every attack on me or my character throughout this was shit, and obviously so. I was trying to make nice with this guy, and his response is to get upset and offended at the slightest provocation. That's "shit", right there.

Sure, I agree, it wasn't very civil of me (at all) to phrase it that way. "There is no truth whatsoever to your allegations. If you feel otherwise, I suggest you take this to the appropriate venue and let the community decide." would have been the best way to put it. But after that series of aspersions and personal attacks he'd just subjected me to (all in response to me extending olive branches to both Slater and the other editor), I really couldn't care less whether my way of phrasing it hurt his feelings or not. There's a trout button at the top of my talk page. Feel free to use it if you think it's necessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And "I contend without reservation" I did not "implicitly accuses him of bigotry", I said that I would not more consider mocking one disability any funnier then another (in other words that making fun of disability is not funny), the implication (not implicit statement) was that he was making fun of a disability. Which I then go on to make clear is not an accusation of bigotry but of ignorance (as in lack of understanding). Thus, no I did not accuse him of bigotry, thus his response on both inaccurate and made no attempt to find out why I was offended, and still does not care. An apology would have sufficed, and before anyone says it why should I need to ask for one? Instead I got totally misrepresented, and told to fuck off. I would not have done anything, until that last post,

I accept that not every one understand the issues surrounding Dyslexia, but I will not be told to fuck off and shouted at when I say "I do not find this funny, it is a disability".Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Except you didn't say that, did you? You directly accused me of mocking you, and compared that to mocking a paraplegic. Mocking paraplegics is a bigoted act. You framed your comparison as a value judgement. So if you weren't trying to imply that I was engaged in bigotry (knowing full well the whole time that I had no reason to suspect you were dyslexic), there there is literally no meaning to your response, whatsoever. And the suggestion that anyone should mind their words lest they inadvertently offend someone is ridiculous in the extreme. We'd never say anything at all if we did that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you did not "implicitly" accuse him of bigotry, you accused him "explicitly": ".Yes by the way, I do believe that mocking (not matter how "inoffensive") literacy is bigotry"[31]. Mjolnirpants has indicated above that his final reply was uncivil (understandably so, in my opinion, but still uncivil); but up till then, the only one that should apologize is you, not Mjolnirpants. From that same diff: "a pattern of ridiculing disrespect you clearly hold for anyone whose intelligence you consider wanting." What? He made an inoffensive joke based on the actual result of the typo, not on the fact that you made a typo. To take your homosexual comparison above: if someone (homosexual or not, dyslectic or not) would type "fifty shades of gay" instead of "fifty shades of grey", and the response would be "I thought there were only seven shades of gay?", then it would be ridiculous for aynone to be offended by that reply, which is neither mocking homosexuals nor mocking dyslexics, but simply inserting some lightheartedness into a discussion. You mistook it for sarcasm (can happen), Mjolnirpants replied that it was intended as playfullness, and that should have been the end of it. If really necessary, you could then have posted "yeah, sorry, I'm dyslexic and a bit sensitive about comments about typos", to which Mjolnirpants would with near certainty have answered "Oh, I didn't realise this, sorry, no offence was intended!". Instead, you deliberately choose to interpret the joke in the worst possible way, and continue to do so. Drop it, please. Fram (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, what Fram said. This is ludicrous. Capeo (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK I will drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't buy the "mocking a disability" angle, but I do think Mjolnirpants should be reprimanded for this. Mjolnirpants - making fun of a typo is almost never a good idea in Wikipedia discussions - especially when discussing politically-charged topics (like "Pizzagate") - because even the smallest bit of negativity can come off like a provocation. (It's like the difference between making fun of your best friend and making fun of the new kid at school.) In this case, Slatersteven felt that the joke was an act of aggression, not of levity - and he seems to have been proven right when Mjolnirpants just kept escalating after that. The best thing for Slatersteven to do would have been to ignore the provocation, but that doesn't change the fact that Mjolnirpants was being rude. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Oh, goddammit! FTR, I didn't know the above was closed. I guess it happened immediately before I clicked 'Edit' so there was no edit conflict. 106.133.134.54 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Adamstraw99 editing the article 'astra'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Astra (weapon)

The segment of Sudarshana Chakra in the article 'astra' has a description that it can be stopped by Lord Shiva. This seems to be inaccurate and unsourced. Sources supporting the opposite view that Lord Shiva cannot stop Sudarshana chakra has been added as reference. But Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs) has constantly reverted the correction and made use of his experience and know-how of policies to subvert the fact and bully the newbies.Numerous users have tried to correct this in the past, but Adamstraw99 keeps reverting it without bothering to provide any sources.Please enforce WP:PROVEIT and resolve the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.99.229 (talk • contribs)

I've notified the editor of the ANI discussion, which you are required to do. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any recent attempt at discussion of this on the article's talk page, or on Adamstraw99's talk page. ANI is where you go when talking to the other user hasn't worked, it is not where you begin a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page discussion closed inappropriately?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the "Infobox" discussion on the Talk:Cary Grant was closed in an inappropriate manner. Instead of a proper close the discussion was hidden using the Template:Hat with the message "Aww jeez, not this again". When I removed the hid template, my edit was reverted and I received a message on my talk page to "Please do not do this again. Thanks."

If this is an appropriate manner to close a discussion, then please let me know. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See here - that conversation was unlikely to go anywhere. Unless you are formally going to start an RFC on re-adding an infobox, I wouldnt go there. It was removed as a result of a GA review based on the consensus of the people involved in editing the article. People occasionally turn up asking for an infobox without realising the history. Infoboxs *can* be contentious in parts of wikipedia. Chiefly those areas which have dedicated active editors. So 'not this again' is not an uncommon response when there have been less than civil arguments previously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I see from the history of that talk page that an infobox was removed because one GA reviewer thought it was "bloated" and that all discussion about having an infobox since has been shut down before a consensus was reached. Whether an RfC would be a good idea or not I don't know, but "Aww jeez, not this again" is not an appropriate closure notice as it does not help anyone not already familiar with the history to understand the reasoning. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It shouldnt have been shut down by We hope regardless, as they contributed both at the GA review and in the previous archived discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record-the discussion was closed by an admin who was NOT involved in the discussion on 30 January, not by me. We hope (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not re-open closed discussions without good reason. That particularly applies when the discussion finished on 27 January 2017, just over two months ago. The background is at WP:ARBINFOBOX. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was out of process and not an appropriate action, administrative or otherwise; it violates WP:TPG. I have re-opened the thread and made a suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: @Johnuniq: I want to stress that the issue is not related to the topic covered by the discussion. The only issue is the manner a discussion was closed. I have never seen a discussion "closed" in this manner. Mitchumch (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It happens. What's still unclear is why the obsession of some users against infoboxes - putting their rigid style ideas ahead of what the readers might like to see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Generally they are not unless its particularly contentious and something that has been discussed repeatedly. A quick 'see previous consensus' close sometimes heads off long non-productive discussions. Unless you are actually going to formally propose re-adding the infobox (and it would require a formal RFC for this article, anything less would be wikilawyered to death) I would not re-open it. Procedually there is scope for an RFC to re-add it. It was removed after being in the article for a significant period of time, as a result of the Good Article reviewers personal preference recommendation (GA criteria can neither prohibit or mandate infoboxs) which will of course mean that anyone working on the article will remove the infobox because they want it to be a GA. Likewise there was vocal opposition to it being removed and calls for it to be returned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's contentious because it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How many bitter battles have you seen? Battles that have extended literally over years and which very nearly resulted in the banning of a very prolific editor (who supports infoboxes!) at Arbitration? Of course it's not an appropriate way to close a discussion. However, walk a mile in their shoes before digging up dirt. What benefit to the encyclopedia do you hope to achieve? Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What benefit to the encyclopedia by putting rigid styling ahead of what readers might want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ignore those above who are talking about infoboxes. Why's it necessary to hide a closed discussion? Well, it's not. There is a difference between what you did, which was to re-open the discussion, and using {{archive top}} which would have been more appropriate. Let those who want to argue for hiding the discussion then do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Could you add the {{archive top}} to the discussion? Especially, since I accidentally re-opened the discussion. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's my preference to not even close most discussions, however I would favour an unhidden discussion over a hidden one any day. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Where do I go to have an admin close the discussion? Mitchumch (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ATOP is not necessary in all cases. It is generally used on high volume pages to force archiving (when a discussion has reached a resolution and is not going to be changed) to prevent the page getting too large. Otherwise archiving is handled either by bot (if the talkpage has been set up to archive) or someone manually doing it (Oneclick etc). Its not a busy talkpage so there is no rush due to page size. Someone will get round to it eventually. Not all discussions need formal closure either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Cary Grant talk page discussion was closed by an admin who was NOT involved in the discussion on 30 January We hope (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It was hatted, not closed. There was no explanation of why it was hatted, HAT is not generally used for entire discussions, its used to hat parts of discussions that are off-topic etc or to collapse large pieces of information to make a discussion more readable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was out of process and not an appropriate action, administrative or otherwise; it violates WP:TPG. I have re-opened the thread and made a suggestion as to how to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have un-collapsed it. There is no reason to collapse entire threads on a talk page. There is in particular no cause to collapse one with a rude summary. That said, the best way to deal with the eternal infobox question is to create an official WP:RfC on whether to include one on that particular article. There really is no other way to resolve the issue. Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Well, hi folks! Intrigued by this collegial comment [32] looks like I wandered into the middle of a gunfight [33]. Cary on. I'm popping some popcorn. EEng 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume you purposefully mispelled carry a) we're talking about Cary Grant and b) so people don't go picking up sticks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't it well past time for the "Not this shit again!" image? It appears to be running late today. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a wide selection of images to choose from at User:EEng#Alle-wiki-gory. EEng 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)Whatever the merits or otherwise of an infobox on that article, repeatedly hatting a discussion started in good faith is not approrpiate, doubly so with a rude and uninformative closure notice. If there is truly a settled consensus then the discussion could have been closed, politely and without hatting, using a summary that pointed to where this consensus was established. Edit warring to reinstate the hat and try and intimidate other editors, as Cassianto did (see the links given by EEng above), is seriously out of order. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the fact that this must be at least the third time this has raised its head on just this article. Haven't people got better things to be doing with their time? Regarding the close, whilst it wasn't gone about in the best of ways, a link was given to the previous discussion. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh really, Thryduulf, so if you hatted a discussion only for someone to then ignore that and carry on the shit-fest three months later, that would be ok, would it? I'll bear that in mind the next time I've seen you hat something Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Don't edit war. Even if you think you are in the right, don't edit war. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
        • So this only applies to someone who thinks they're right, rather than someone who is blatantly wrong? This person, who also thinks they're right, by the way, are also up to 2rr; tell me, what is your opinion on that? I've unwatched the article as I don't really give a flying fuck about it, but I think consistency should be applied (which it won't). Cassianto^Talk 04:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Ok, let's try something that cannot be twisted this time: Do not edit war, ever, regardless of circumstances, reasons, beliefs, knowledge, or anything else, do not edit war, ever. If somebody else is edit warring, don't join in, ever. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• I closed the discussion originally because Cassianto wrote "Let's have a sodding infobox and be done with it." Given I have seem him get quite heated and angry about infoboxes elsewhere, I suspected we were going to be in for another screaming match with incivility flying around left, right and centre, and I thought it was best to stop the problem before it started, with a notice I hoped would put light on the situation and calm people down a bit. I didn't fully appreciate not everyone has Cassianto's sense of humour and I do apologise to people who felt I was shutting them out unfairly. If people want to start a new discussion and keep it civil and in good faith, there's no reason they can't; but they do need to realise they are revisiting contentious ground. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That poor Cassianto might start spitting and spewing and sputtering and spiting at everyone in sight if he gets frustrated isn't a reason to close a discussion. I've left the collapse but restored Softlavender's removed comment in a new subthread just beneath [34]. Now everyone wins! EEng 19:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The principal thing I really want to avoid if at all possible is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2, but I've got a sinking feeling it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think someone should create {{Infobox infobox dispute}} so we can summarize threads like this in a handy, compact way for the benefit of editors who want a quick overview of what the fuck the argument is about, who the principal disputants are, and so on. EEng 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• My issue is not of the infobox but of the opening of an admin-hatted discussion which was reopened by someone who clearly likes the dramah of it all. This kind of repeated discussion is disruptive and causes unnessersary ill-feeling. This was hatted on 30 January 2017 and here we are, three months later, digging up the same bloody corpse. I have no particular affiliation with this subject as it's not one I have spent my precious time and hard-earned money working on, so I don't really care one way or the other. But someone has and for whatever reason, they have chosen to omit an idiotbox. Out of respect, they should be directly consulted. Cassianto^Talk 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • An idiotbox, i.e. for the idiots who read Wikipedia. Good attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption at CESNUR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have a new editor trying to get CESNUR deleted, but I can't get them to use the right process. They've tried WP:G11 and WP:A7 (they tagged for G11 and argued for A7 on the talk page!), and both are clearly inapplicable so I declined the request. They have also removed dead links (even though a couple of them already had archive links included), and have added tags to the article without explaining on the talk page when asked. Now they are repeatedly using WP:PROD even though I have declined it once and have explained they need to use WP:AFD (and even though they actually keep saying they will use WP:AFD). Oh, and they are accusing me of being connected to the director of the organization. I can't take any admin action because I have become slightly involved in the content (I fixed up some refs and added some new ones) and if the editor thinks I'm connected with the organization then it would be better for me to keep away from admin tools anyway, but this is becoming quite disruptive. Please see User talk:Juliano202 and Talk:CESNUR#Contested deletion to see the whole thing for yourself, and I'd be grateful if someone could please provide whatever further explanation/warning/whatever that you think appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the editor's last post on the article's talk page shows they've seen the light. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, we've just had the response "I did not set out to offend you in some way. I just did not understand the reason for removing my editing. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Thank you for explaining my mistake. I apologize, I did not mean to offend you in any way. Now you have pointed out my mistake and I will correct it" at Talk:CESNUR#Contested deletion, so there's probably no immediate action needed - but I'd still be grateful for some admin eyes on it, as I need to go and do something more calming and relaxing now, like pick a fight with the big dog down the end of the street. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I need to go and do something more calming and relaxing now, like pick a fight with the big dog down the end of the street. I've always found gladiatorial combat to be quite relaxing myself. I've a spare trident and suit of slightly skimpy armor if you want to give it a shot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that a hammer in your pants, or are you just pl... ? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm always happy to see you, Boing ;) But yeah, actually that is a hammer. I really need to buy a tool belt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Its ok (Premjeeyi (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unacceptable behaviour at Template:Infobox royalty/doc

The issue of DrKay's actions at the infobox template appears to have resolved itself; admin action is not required here. Some editors are dissatisfied with DrKay's response here, but there isn't much this forum can do about it. If any editor wants to compile a case to review DrKay's adminship they are free to do so at WP:ARC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

---

DrKay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in a slow, but steady edit-war to impose his version of the documentation at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Since 15 April he has made essentially the same changes 8 times despite three other editors disagreeing with him. These are the edits, along with his edit summaries:

1. This parameter is deprecated per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.
2. deprecated per RfC, which concluded it should only be used for religious figures. Royalty are not religious figures.
3. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
4. you have performed three reverts in 24 hours, you may not do so again
5. This is the consensus at this page. If you think consensus has changed, go to the talk page.
6. I see no change in consensus on the talk page
7. I'm not lying.
8. as agreed on talk

Note the mistaken and misleading edit summaries:

• The Rfc he was referring to, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes was closed by Iridescent who has confirmed that the religion parameter was deprecated only in {{Infobox person}}. Other biographical infoboxes may need the religion parameter (e.g. {{Infobox clergy}}, so each infobox needs to make its own determination.
• There is no existing consensus to deprecate religion from {{infobox royalty}} where the edit-war is occurring, as can quickly be ascertained from the talk history.
• There is no agreement to his changes at Template talk:Infobox royalty.

Having commented at the talk page and requested an end to the edit-war, I visited DrKay's talk page to see if anyone had already raised the issue with him. I was dismayed to see from the history that he had removed the thread with the edit summary Fuck off, Andy. DrKay has edited Wikipedia for over 10 years and is an administrator. That sort of response to valid criticism is completely unacceptable and indicates to me that DrKay has become too invested in his original mistake to be able to rationally back away from it. I'm therefore requesting that he voluntarily acknowledges that that his behaviour is sub-standard, and that he understands that edit-warring – even without breaching the 3RR bright-line – is not a valid means of reaching consensus. In the absence of such assurances, I request that administrative action is taken to prevent him edit-warring further at Template:Infobox royalty/doc. --RexxS (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Having looked at the edit history at Template:Infobox royalty/doc, I am very disturbed to see DrKay has been edit warring against multiple other editors and has been doing so since 4 April (and accusing others of 3RR breaches in the process while ignoring their own sub-3RR warring). Had I seen the current spate of reverts while it was still active, I would certainly have issued a block. This, accompanied by the uncivil rebuffing of attempts to discuss the matter, is lamentable behaviour from an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies – I should have included a convenience link to the edit history of that page. Here are the last 50 edits up to today. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Per my comments here my closure of the original RFC explicitly only applies to {{infobox person}}. The question being asked there was Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?, for which there was an overwhelming and policy-backed consensus, but it's clear that only this specific infobox was under discussion, not all biographical infoboxes in general.

  There may well be consensus to remove the religion parameter from all infoboxes and rely on custom text in those instances where the field genuinely needs to be included, but that's not what was up for discussion and to the best of my knowledge has never been formally discussed. Because the topic of infoboxes tends to attract some very obsessive people on both sides of any debate, in my opinion any significant change to practice does require a formal RFC with a formal closure. There's long been a tendency for people to try to bludgeon changes through by bullying the other participants out of discussions, so Wikipedia's usual discuss-until-a-consensus-is-reached approach often fails to function properly in this context. ‑ Iridescent 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "impose my version". I have no strong opinion on the parameter per se. I am merely an administrator trying to implement community consensus. Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter[35] so I am confused by his actions at the template documentation page, and as he has never posted to talk I am still not clear. When I posted to talk it was only to clarify widespread community consensus that whether to use a parameter is decided on a case-by-case basis at each individual article, to which two editors agreed readily (and no-one has opposed). So, again I am baffled by the extreme responses to what should be uncontroversial re-statement of existing norms. I told Andy to fuck off because he was attempting to stoke the embers of Only in death's harassment, which were long since cold. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DrKay, I am extremely close to indefblocking you on WP:CIR grounds here. Since you seem to have missed it despite it being pointed out directly above and explained in detail, Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter is an outright lie; OID was writing in support of removal of the parameter from {{infobox person}} explicitly. If you want an RFC to remove the parameter from {{infobox royalty}}, by all means start one, but don't edit-war to enforce the outcome of a RFC which never took place except in your own head. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DrKay, here's a question I'd really like to ask you at your reconfirmation RfA (because I think you seriously need one), but I'll make do with here for now. If multiple people disagree with your interpretation of consensus and revert you, what are you supposed to do?

a) Edit war

b) Discuss

c) Something else

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: CIR is an essay. "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supports removal of the parameter" can be easily re-drafted as "Only in death, the main interlocutor, supported removal of the generic parameter"; there is no intention to deceive. Nor was there ever. Your accusation of lying is just another bad faith assumption tantamount to harassment. I'm not starting an RfC because I hold no strong opinion on the matter of whether the parameter is retained or removed.

@Boing: There is no edit-war. It's over. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be over now, but I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy and assess your fitness as an admin. So can you please explain what went wrong and how it should have been handled? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no misuse of the tools, removing them will be of no benefit to the project.

I regret saying fuck off, which is out of character, and came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person.

I have read and understood the comments here and at the template talk page. I will continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others, as I have done on many occasions in the past. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So you will not answer my request for you to explain what went wrong in this instance and how it should have been handled? (And I don't mean just the "fuck off"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There sure is a LOT of this type of WP:CIR from administrators these days... Is it at all possible to get a review system going already? --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's still going on, see the edit summary here, which seems like a personal attack (never mind a complete inability to comprehend reality) - "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Block them. --Tarage (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Surprised no one pinged me on this. Not that anyone wants my opinion but as background - religion is rightly irrelevant for the vast majority of people covered by infobox persons. For royalty it can be a lot more important (despite not being the reason for their notability) as anyone with even a passing familiarity with world history can see. So this started when I reverted the incorrect removal of the parameter from Royalty which had been done by DrKay under (assuming good faith at that point) a misapprehension that the infobox_person applied to all biographical infoboxs. Given the closer has repeatedly explained no it doesnt, and having informed DrKay of this, he kept removing it citing what he knows to be an 'untruth'. I find no benefit in using soft wording in this case with someone who is both experienced enough and intelligent enough to know better. You can be mistaken once or twice (or longer) if no one has explained things to you. After someone has explained something to you in clear English, its no longer a mistake. I removed the royalty infobox from my watchlist after my last revert due to the clear intractability of DrKay (which is why I suspect I missed the ongoing kerfuffle). I am generally not interested in arguing with someone who persists in being wrong. -ninja edit- Just noticed the above 'harrassment' editsum was related to me informing him why he was wrong. I know wikipedia likes to redefine harrassment in strange new ways but that one is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death, a couple of paragraphs above he accuses me of "harassment" for pointing out that his claims that you supported the removal of the religion parameter were untrue. I wouldn't take it personally, this is fairly obviously just general lashing out at anyone in range rather than specifically directed at you. ‑ Iridescent 16:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is completely unacceptable behaviour from an experienced editor, let alone an administrator. At the very least I think we need to be looking at a topic ban of some sort (perhaps from making changes to infoboxes?) but possibly even more than that. Certainly if they continue doing this or make any more personal attacks while this thread is active I don't think we should be overly hesitant to block. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment People like RexxS and {U|Boing! said Zebedee|Boing!}} don't raise concerns about an admin's behaviour (or anyone else's for that matter) without very good reason. Looking at the situation, I must concur. I think perhaps a voluntary re-confiration RfA could be the answer, failing which, an Arbcom case would appear to be the only way to go, even if all it did were to issue a formal adminoshment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I edit-warred. I was rude. I was admonished at a minimum of three separate locations. Who exactly is being disruptive now? Me or the editors demanding a fourth venue? DrKay (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"I edit-warred. I was rude. I was admonished..." And you consider this acceptable behavior for an admin? A dysfunctional admin is, pretty much by definition, more disruptive than a similarly disruptive rank-and-file editor. It's possible, although not at all certain, that a rank-and-file editor who edit-warred and was rude might be formally sanctioned rather than simply being "admonished", and might well need to issue apologies and assurances for good future behavior to forestall such sanctions, or have them removed. Yet you seem not to be apologetic, not to really care if people are worried about your future behavior, and to brush off your mere admonishment as simply your due. You appear to think that an admin is a "super-user" of some kind, a notion that some folks here wish to disabuse you of, and you have essentially ignored them. Do you not perceive the problem here? Can you not see that long-time established editors of sound reputation and good sense are very concerned about your behavior?

I do not think you can brush this off, I think you must deal with the idea that your integrity and competence as an admin is under serious question from serious people. Please do not minimize this, or disrespectfully characterize it again as "disruption". You have a problem, do not assume it's going to go away by ignoring it -- instead, please attend to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I expressed regret and issued assurances of future behavior above. Your claims that I don't care and think I'm a 'super-user' are not only unjust and unwarranted, they are a distortion of reality that, to borrow a phrase from Iridescent, only exists in your own head.

This thread is no longer designed to get an apology or assurances of good behavior, because that has already been achieved. Its continuation has some other goal -- one which I have no intention of gratifying. So, if you want that other goal, you will need to go to a fourth venue. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And with that reply, basically stating "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't have to stop if I don't want to." I think we're left with no choice but the arbitration committee, unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of my reply. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: There is a lot that disturbs me about these latest responses from you. Firstly you say "I expressed regret", but the only instance I can see on this page is this very claim that you expressed regret - if I have missed one, please do point it out to me. (And even then, "regret" is largely meaningless - I have seen nothing remotely like "I was wrong".) (Update: I see from below that the only thing you apparently regret is saying "fuck off". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

Finally, here, you did say "I edit-warred. I was rude", but that didn't come until 3 days after this report was made - during which time you kept insisting you were right until the weight of opinion against you (with not one single person supporting you) became unarguable, and you kept attacking and insulting those in dispute with you. And your admission came only after Kudpung added his opinion that you should run for reconfirmation or be taken to an Arbcom case.

You singularly failed to answer my question about what you did wrong and how you should have dealt with it, deflecting it with a non-answer about how you will "continue to follow the consensus of the community and work collaboratively with others". And you added a further attack with your edit summary "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it" when blanking a perfectly good faith discussion of your actions on your talk page (I gave the link, above).

As you noted yourself somewhere, you have had four blocks since becoming an admin for edit warring. Granted the last one was in 2013 and I would normally consider that too old for consideration now - but your latest edit warring was blatant.

What I'm seeing here is an insistence that you were right all along coupled with a dismissive and insulting approach to those who question you, some grudging pseudo-contrition now that it appears you might not have got away with it after all, and no real attempt to address these genuine concerns from your fellow Wikipedians about your approach in practice to collaborative editing. If you were not an admin and were to run for it now I think you would get an overwhelming "Oppose", and for that reason I would support an ArbCom report if you do not choose to run for a reconfirmation RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"I regret..." (3 days ago, 2 days before the "I edit-warred" post)

I will not run for a reconfirmation RfA. I don't agree with them, and never have.[36] DrKay (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Orthogonal to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How long are we going to allow this sort of thing before we get an ability for the community to remove mops? This is not the first instance, and it will not be the last. I am bemused that the same song and dance is occurring over and over again with nothing changing. --Tarage (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC) A valid question, but not really helpful under the circumstances, since it detracts from the primary question, which is about DrKay's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That "regret" is only "I regret saying fuck off", which was then and is still now nowhere near sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is entirely insufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I and others edit-warred: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43].

I and others were rude: 'lying''lies''outright lie''untruth'; three euphemistic accusations of lying at my talk page in quick succession:[44][45][46].

I and the others were wrong, which I have admitted days ago: [47]. There has been no regret or admission of fault from the others.

There is no misuse of the tools. An arbitration request is an over-reaction to a localized concluded dispute on a trivial point (the parameter was always optional, and remains so). DrKay (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears I need to remind you again, the *only* admission of any wrongdoing in that "days ago" link was of your telling someone to fuck off. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What now?

So it seems that no further acceptance that their behaviour was unacceptable seems likely to be forthcoming where do we want to go from here? @Boing! said Zebedee, Beyond My Ken, Rexx, Iridescent, Tarage, Kudpung, Only in death, and DrKay: I think that's everyone who has commented on this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC) @RexxS: let's try with an S this time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• With a raft of admins plus RexxS (who isn't one but who ought to be and doesn't want to be,) having pretty much been generous in not carrying out their threats to block, and other suggesting suggesting a re-run at RfA, DrKay's refusal only really leaves the other path open. Arbcom's not perfect but it doesn't make many mistakes so I suggest we offer the case to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mountain-molehill. As long as they accept they are *wrong* about the RFC and wont edit-war on similar issues. Anything else is asking for a long drawn-out case. Unless someone has some genuine concerns other than related to this issue of course. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see where DrKay has accepted they were wrong about the RfC - in fact, the "remove harassment from disruptive editors who find themselves in the minority against a longstanding community decision, and so are attempting to subvert it" comment suggests quite the opposite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but has DrKay acted as an admin at all in this dispute? Were the tools used in anyway by DrKay? El_C 12:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, but misuse of admin tools is not the only thing that can result in sanctions against admins. There is a chilling effect of admins edit warring while warning others to stop (and this is someone with 4 blocks for edit warring since becoming an admin - blocks which have apparently not taught them anything), and there are other examples of potentially bad behaviour that I'm still considering (and will not publicize here). I think ArbCom would offer a fair look over this, and I think it needs some resolution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's just that there's calls for reconfirmation (and, by extension, desysop); but the tools played no role, thus, adminship does seem like a non-issue here. El_C 13:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: WP:ADMINCOND is something we all agree to follow as admins. And that has little to do with use of the tools. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as an uninvolved editor I think taking this to ArbCom would probably be best. There is no reason for an admin to tell someone to "fuck off", there comes a point when if one gets angry, the best thing to do is to just stop editing. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration case seems like an overreaction. Admins are humans and are allowed to err. El_C 13:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Are they? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect" answers "allowed to err" question. I can't speak to if we're all human, being accused of being a robot more than once. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As the originator of this thread, I have to say that at this moment, I think the point has been made to DrKay. I'm sensitive to his admission that his rudeness "came about largely because of private events off-wiki involving the ill-health of a third person." Some of you may understand why this is so. He is a very long-term contributor and, in my humble opinion, remains a net positive to the encyclopedia, despite a predilection to edit-war. We all know how difficult it can be to admit mistakes, and it's rarely productive to ask for an apology, because we all create our own internal narrative of events that justifies our actions. Knowing when to say "sorry" genuinely is the hardest part of self-awareness. Given all of that, my advice would be not to proceed with an ArbCom case. I don't doubt that DrKay will have been given pause to reflect on what has been said here, and I sincerely hope he'll take that with him in his future contributions. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I've been thinking about this, and I admit I'm torn. I do think there are behavioural problems and that it's not a one-off (four edit-warring blocks since becoming an admin, which would certainly have been five had I seen the edit war while it was in progress), chillingly warning an edit-war opponent that they can't go beyond 3RR while both were at 3RR, and the rest of it... But, there is the "ill-health of a third person" thing, DrKay most definitely is a big net positive to the project, and I tend to trust RexxS's judgment in such things (notwithstanding my general trust of others' judgments which might be in opposition, aargh). There is another (possibly minor) issue which I have contacted an ArbCom member about to seek clarification, but I'll leave that like that. On balance now, I'm coming down on the side of hoping that DrKay has actually taken note of the requirements of WP:ADMINCOND and what went wrong there (despite the actual lack of evidence that he has), and I would not now recommend an ArbCom case after all and I will not start one - though I won't argue too strongly against it if others wish to do so. Either way, I think this needs to be a "last chance" heads-up on that poor record of edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate being notified about this again, I have no faith in the current system changing anything. I suspect this will fall into the archives with no actions taken and no close. Par for the course. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This being archiving without a close is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here (and above re SimomTrew). Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh I know you are. I'm just saying no one with the ability to do anything is going to. --Tarage (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

False-positive block of two accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The two accounts User:Shahadusadik and User:Joy Agyepong have been incorrectly identified as sockpuppets. They may well have shared an Internet connection at editing meetups, but these two are distinct people I have met in person in the course of my work at the Foundation.

The blocking admin announced they're away for a couple of days, and it would be good if the unjustified block can be lifted sooner. See discussion on their talk page. Thanks. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

These are checkuser blocks which may not be undone by any admin that is not a checkuser. Consensus here would not outweigh that policy. Defer to Wikipedia talk:CheckUser to make this form of appeal. This is up to the CUs to resolve.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw, these accounts are all being looked at as meatpuppets so being different people in real life does not mean that there has necessarily been a mistake.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case (and I assume an employee of the Foundation would not be involved in deliberate deception in this regard) then it is very likely that the editor operating the Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr sockfarm was also in attendance at the meetup in question. In terms of policy, I believe any Checkuser may approve an unblock in the case of the blocking Checkuser being unavailable, as KrakatoaKatie currently is. So, {{checkuser needed}} to comment on the unblock request.

Alternatively, Asaf (WMF), if there is an urgent need for the Office to step over the usual community review processes and expedite this action, you can contact the functionaries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that the Committee is going to review the blocks, I see no need for a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivanvector. There is no particular urgency, except the obvious frustration of those users not being able to edit. So by all means, we should have the usual community review process. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at this, I would say that the two editors concerned have been caught up in this by editing from the same IP address as the sockmaster concerned. There doesn't appear to be much correlation to their editing, so unless I've got something completely wrong I would suggest unblocking. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably so, but policy is clear that Checkuser blocks may not be removed without a Checkuser's approval. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've raised this thread on the ArbCom mailing list and requested a review. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The accounts have now been unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pratikdave04 - Page creation problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pratikdave04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user repeatedly is making inappropriate, autobiographical pages. At this point it is vandalism or a CIR issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the pages they created, and I'm going to leave a message on their page regarding their creation of pages. If they keep it up, a block's going to be in order at least a short one, possibly longer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I blocked for 48 hours before I saw this. Blanking their page indicated they were aware of previous warnings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Dan56 violated three-revert rule

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite there being a talk page for Harlem Shake (Song) related to the edits that were taking place, the user Dan56 has decided to forego this process and revert changes repeatedly without discussing them. I think this user needs to be blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism, at least temporarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseman585 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlem_Shake_%28song%29&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseman585 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of a source that is a self-published, non-reliable source is definitely not vandalism. Replacing a valid source with an invalid one repeatedly, especially after being told as such on multiple talk pages however is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, and I responded to the talk page. And I've only reverted twice, so far... Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR does say "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". Indeed, you've had more than 24 hours for these edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dan56 seems to be in the clear here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, this person (previously as 50.204.132.106, more recently as Cheeseman585) has been reinserting this change into the article and starting an edit war for the past four days; the preponderance of sources--including those reporting on the lawsuit specifying the exact sample being "Maldades"--say "Maldades", but this person, Cheeseman or whatever, again added an inappropriate source and then an appropriate source whose writer concedes he is not sure about what the sample exactly is. Can someone intervene? I've reverted for a third time, and judging by the tone of Cheeseman's comments at the talk page, they're not going to take anything I say seriously--there's genuinely a competency issue. Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, just read this ranting. Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheeseman585, 6 reverts within 24 hours

• 14:28, 4 May 2017 (as IP, reverting what had been undone on 2 May)
• 15:36, 4 May 2017 (again as IP)
• 16:31, 4 May 2017
• 16:51, 4 May 2017
• 17:07, 4 May 2017
• 17:34, 4 May 2017

@RickinBaltimore:, @RileyBugz: Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Very clear civility issues here. Personal attacks, a complete failure to understand reliable sources, and an over zealous attempt to right 'great wrongs'. Boomerang. --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And he's still edit warring. Block him please. --Tarage (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The content in question has a clear and absolute truth to it. This is the only thing that should be discussed. The fact is, I corrected information on the page and it has been reverted multiple times for no reason by the users Dan56 and Tarage, even after I added multiple proper sources with proof directly proving the information I added. There is no need for an edit war. I won't leave the content of this page as incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseman585 (talk • contribs) 22:11, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

Welp, you're still wrong then buddy. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

*Boomerang. Blocked account one week and hardblocked his IP for the same. IP socking and edit warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rush block please...

Rush block

Rush block

Resolved

 – sock blocked in a rush. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Kaylor2017now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Kaylor2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) currently polluting Canadian kid's networks articles with 'old show which is long dead will have a revival this year but I have zero sources except for my own pretend world' nonsense. I've filed an SPI, but it's taking awhile to notice, and they keep looping the same vandalism. Can I get a rush block? (no point to dropping an ANI notice to their page as they just reset their standard offer with this vandalism). Thanks in advance. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User: IkbenFrank continual mild disruptive editing over a number of articles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be making a high level of mildly disruptive edits over a period of time, and appears to be promoting Railways and cycling out of proportion WP:PROPORTION to articles. WP:RUNAWAY may apply. Behavior has been warned previously. Some information useful, for example Rosses Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but was added in an unuseful way. An example of railway content being added in is Harold Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink). An addition to Harold_Macmillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink) also appears to have 'forced' railway content. Quedgeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink) seems to have given opinion of the safety of the cycleway not backed by a subsequent citation. Reviewing other random edits seem to yield a significant number of mildly questionable contributions that would require re-work. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC) A more obvious case of issues occurs at [[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(difflink) with cycleways being promoted out of WP:PROPORTION. More subtle and debateable issues are Transport in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink) where an out of proportion rail picture was added .. though there may have been a minor WP:EDITWAR here ... see Transport in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink) .. the main issue is the disproportate rail images on a general transport article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at one bike path and reverted the edit, but Djm-leighpark, this is ANI--this is the last resort. This is where you go to get an admin to intervene. Now, you left a message on the user's talk page, but it's captured within a templated warning, and the first time I read their talk page I totally missed it. The editor hasn't edited since that warning/attempt at communication, but you dragged them to ANI anyway. Can I ask you to just please NOT start with a warning? Post a message on their talk page, a clear one, and discuss the matter. I see no need whatsoever to take administrative action: I do not now what the policy violation is, and adding stuff about a bike lane or two is not disruptive. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of replying as follows, but has determined I need a WP:BREAK and need to apologise to the user.
    • If I goto revert/modify more of his contributions I could end up with a WP:HOUND or WP:3RR even with best intentions and efforts; even if I started conversations on even talk page. Contribution to Harold MacMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difflink) may have a valid point but again notice the use of bold text and lack of WP:PROPORTION, Because of contributions over a series of articles Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is questionable. Modus operandi seems to be stop on warning ... do not engage in talk ... wait for a period ... and restart. User_talk:IkbenFrank#Railways_-_please_stop illustrates the issues with back fixing edits and people's frustration doing so. An approproach might be for someone neutral to quickly review all user contributions which is what is needed for a [WP:RUNAWAY].
  • Please feel free to close this Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:This is Paul Uncivil Report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that User:This is Paul has repeatedly acted very uncivilly towards me with no justification.

The issue seemed to begin after I made a single good faith revert in light of guidelines on the matter on which I had previously been uninvolved. My commit and Talk page comment gave my rationale on my actions.

From here I will let the diffs from This is Paul speak for themselves: [48], [49], [50], [51]

My responses were defensive and sometimes a bit snarky in places, however I believe remained relatively civil considering the responses I was receiving. In the end, I tried to address the issue directly on his talk page [52]

However rather than take the feedback on board, This is Paul instead continued with the behaviour and responded with another personal attack: [53]

I believe that the wiki community has a pillar and consensus that we shouldn’t accept this sort of behaviour, which is the main reason that has lead me to lodge this report. Thank you for your time. Dresken (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

While I admit I shouldn't have accused both parties of colluding, I doubt my other comments that day would be construed as uncivil. But if others disagree then I'll accept that they were. Incidentally I wasn't the first to raise the issue of Wikilawyering. The way this user and AlexTheWhovian conducted themselves during the discussions at Talk:Bill Potts and Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who) was not in keeping with how we should behave on here. If I'm guilty of anything it was being irritated with the way Alex tried to slap down everyone who opposed the page move, and the intimidating tone he used. But this was all a week ago now, and I thought we'd moved on. As regards the SPI report, both parties behaved in a manner that made me suspect they could be linked, so I filed the report. I'm pleased for all of us that I was wrong, since AlexTheWhovian has some responsibilities, and a yes from the SPI check would have reflected badly on Wikipedia. I suggest we all move on. This is Paul (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It can't be nice being accused of sock-/meat-puppetry, but since the case went to SPI and you were exonerated, I think I'd leave it there. If you consider the tone of This is Paul's comments to be so incivil as to require administrator intervention then I think you have a very thin skin. In some of these diffs you might have a point that WP:ASPERSIONS are being cast, but then he took it to SPI along with the evidence he had and it's been dealt with. I'm struggling to see anything else that's a problem in the diffs you've offered. My advice is to let it go. GoldenRing (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I only learnt about the SPI report from This is Paul's response in this thread here - so my lodging this report has nothing to do with that. I lodged the report because there was at least one personal attack in 100% of the responses to me from This is Paul, they are highlighted here if they weren't clear in the other diffs - then his response to my raising this with him was another personal attack. I had followed the rest of the advice at WP:CIVIL and that appears to lead here. I believe this behaviour to be against WP:5P4 and I also believed the Wikipedia community was in support of doing more to curb this sort of behaviour. Dresken (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oversight - is there anybody out there?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I emailed Oversight at 21:53 UTC yesterday, the 4th of May. It is now 10:54 on the 5th, and I have had no response (except for the automated copy of the email). It concerned a false claim in the lead of an article that a living person had been imprisoned. Is this delay normal nowadays? DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I always get a speedy response from Oversight myself. Anyway, I've rev-deleted the offending content as a BLP violation, so that should help until someone from oversight looks at it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, just as a suggestion, if you remove content that you believe needs to be rev-deleted or suppressed by oversight, it might be better not to leave an obvious edit summary that would draw people's attention to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've usually had quick responses from them in the past, maybe it's their Wakes Week. If I didn't leave the detailed edit summary then it would be harder for you to find and RevDel! DuncanHill (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oversight will tend to be quick with the low-hanging problems, and will often hesitate a bit where something is not so straightforward. Without going into much detail, this was on a very fine line. I'd actually be surprised if it was oversighted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A fine line? Seriously? I won't bother if that's the attitude then. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I could put the information in a way that's technically correct, and it would look exceedingly similar. Anyway, hopefully oversight will get back to you soon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to contact an oversighter, e.g. to check on the status of a request, then it's best to email the functionaries functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org as this avoid drawing unnecessary attention to what you want oversighted (the Streisand effect is a thing). Anyway, I'll take a look at the ticket now and deal with it if none of my colleagues has. Thryduulf (talk)11:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Senor Freebie

I feel that this editors use of edit warring/WP:STICK, drama/reality perception, and accusations of personal attacks have not improved since their previous blocks for this behavior.

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

See history leading to previous blocks at Talk:Battle_of_Brisbane and [54].

Drama/reality perception:

• Removal of source supporting statement in article, while claiming material is unsourced. He has continued to blank the content despite my documentation, with quotes from the source, that the statement is indeed verifiable, ie [55], [56].
• Obviously inaccurate claim of "unsourced". Repeated claim of "no corresponding source" after blanking what was source #49.
• Claim of "unsupported" to content that faithfully matches source, as pointed out here
• Here we have already agreed that this paragraph is unwarranted, but SF accidentally reverted it back in. Here is SF's response to my observation that we are in agreement.
• Described content as "unsourced" after a 2nd citation was added at his request.

Personal attack allegations:

• [57]
• [58]
• [59]

The content disagreement would be solvable without the behavior issues; the article needs a lot of work but it is not going to be fixed with mass blanking and hyperbole.

Notified [60]. VQuakr (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Poke. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor "translating" person's names and other problems

I have some trouble getting User:Carolus to understand that, when creating articles (or inside articles as well), he shouldn't invent "English" names for people who have had so far not received any attention in English language sources. I first tried to explain this at User talk:Carolus#Caspar vs. Caspard and at Talk:Gaspar Gevartius, which he had created at Joannes Gaspard Gevartius, a name which was not used anywhere before Carolus' creation.

Today, I notice Constantin of Halmale, which has a novel name and is filled with other names not to be found as such in any reliable source on the subject (plus containing a fair number of factual errors). I explained the problem with this one as well and moved it to Costen van Halmale, but his reply at User talk:Carolus#Inventing names is what sent me here: "Have fun, your party i will keep translate noble names, like normal." An unwillingness to cease with problematic behaviour is not promising for an editor who regularly runs into trouble with his edits here (see the section User talk:Carolus#Swedish Dowagers for another very recent example with another editor). Their user page proclams "This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 8 months and 22 days", even though they have no edits here before April 2015. Probably it refers to Gebruiker:Carolus on the Dutch wiki, active since August 2005 and indef blocked there since July 2010...

Looking at his other recent edits more closely, I see other dubious things like using the edit summary "small edit" to change a long-standing redirect for an obvious primary topic into a kind of disambiguation page here, edit warring over an infobox[61], ...

I don't think they are willing to listen to advice from me, so perhaps some other people can step in and try to educate the editor about what is and what isn't allowed on enwiki? Letting him continue unchecked doesn't seem like a good idea, and would only lead to sanctions further down the line, while now there may still be a chance to improve things. Fram (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have learned (sometimes sadly, as in the case of Hedwig of Holstein, a Swedish queen whose name was not Hedwig at all, but Helwig) that in Wikipedia articles only names in frequent use in academic literature can be used and that unusual name forms must be sourced reliably. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please... not... the diacritic crowd! EEng

Not quite. Where there are English-language sources available, those (with some exceptions) are used to title the article. As ENWP is aimed at English-language speakers, it is preferable to use/reference English language sources. Fram's problem is that the user is translating names into English approximations *where no real English language sources exist*. Hedwig/Helwig had plenty of English sources available that called her Hedwig. So incorrect name aside, thats how she is titled. Had there been no/little English language sources available, she would more likely have been named Helvig per the Swedish sources. Here Fram is asserting the same, that the people should be named per their sources, because English ones are not available/in short supply. Personally someone needs to trout the user quickly, before this discussion draws the diacritic crowd... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not entirely sure a trout is going to cut it here. Given this level of gross IDHT, I think at the very least a stern warning may be needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  I would say a topic ban can be appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: What from, though? "Unsourced spellings of foreign names"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed they aren't taking part in this discussion although they've still been editing, and clearly know about the discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That's exactly what they said they'd do, though, isn't it? As I said above, IDHT... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban on article creation? On creation of bio articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban on adding names without a reliable source for the exact form of the name, so that we at least can be certain that it was in use in reliable sources before it entered enwiki. Anyway NeilN has asked Carolus to participate here, and Carolus has asked if he may do so in Dutch; which raises the question of WP:CIR of course. Anyway, there are enough people here fluent in Dutch (myself, but also uninvolved editors) so we can translate whatever Carolus would post if needed. Fram (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Side discussion

@EEng: Your levity is, as always, much appreciated, but in this case doesn't seem to be relevant unless one reads OID's comment below the above image very closely. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I surmise you're reading on mobile, or some weird browser. EEng 07:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

iPad. But if you look at the history, I originally posted the above directly below the line where you added the image, above OID's comment. I moved it because I realized (too late) that the placement between Serge and OID's comments made the first line of OID's comment nonsense, and the way the image was placed it wasn't even clear that that was what I was referring to (as my comment didn't display below the image). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

RXX-7979Ⅲ and historical deletionism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Statue of Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has already been blocked once for whitewashing Japanese war crimes at Statue of Peace. While he was away, the IP address 210.142.104.167 spoke remarkably similarly at Talk:Statue_of_Peace#Wartime_Comfort_Women_by_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_of_Japan. 210.142 said "Wikipedia must not be politically used by activists" as if Jim1138 and I (two Americans with no relationship to Korea) were political activists, which is certainly in the lead the most ironic hypocrisy I've ever seen this year. Upon RXX's return, they continued their usual behavior.

If you look at that talk page section, you'll find a pretty clear case of a user whose only purpose is to "correct" our "imbalanced" article through historical denialism.

Ian.thomson (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not the same person. I show evidence for editing.--RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The editor behind the 210.142 IP addresses writes like you, argues for the same ideas, is active in the same location as you, and is only active when you are logged out. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not the same person. I will ask you not to block while continuing the discussion.--RXX-7979Ⅲ (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Saying "it is not the same person" a second time is not proof. The reason I started this thread is because you've shown that there's no point in discussion -- you are not going to listen because you have locked yourself in a far-right nationalist echo chamber that denies what many Japanese historians and the rest of the world acknowledges. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be premature to call for a topic ban against such revisionism? El_C 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:Checkuser. I support either a topic ban on Japanese war crimes or an indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, CU doesn't/can't work on IP addressess. Per beans, its all rather mysterious what they will and will not do. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue with privacy more than anything; CUs won't out a user's IP unless the abuse is particularly egregious. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban. Having read the discussion at Talk:Statue of Peace#Wartime Comfort Women by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan I support a topic ban. As scope I suggest maybe Japanese history (broadly construed) - going for "Japanese war crimes" is something they might not properly comprehend as they appear to be a war crimes denialist, and Japanese history is open to far less interpretation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• TB 1 month for Japanese History and 2 for Japanese war crimes, serve consecutively. Failure to adhere to one can result in an extension of the other or a block. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• support TBAN ≈ (not timed out, just plain old TBAN) after having read the talk page. One very clear POV and no sign of relenting or addressing NPOV policy. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• support TBAN - clearly not grasping the whole idea of NPOV. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• So is this TB being implemented? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethanbas, Riceissa, and Vipul

This is a courtesy notice that a community-imposed indef block of Riceissa that was imposed here at ANI was undone without any discussion, at the covert (off-wiki) request of Ethanbas, who is also one of Vipul's paid editors and who per previous discussions here at ANI has been under the threat of siteban were he to behave in any way disruptively or malignly. The discussion about this is taking place at AN; please comment there if you so choose: [62]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that's entirely accurate. We can argue about whether covert applies (I can see arguments on both sides) — I would simply have used "off-wiki" but my understanding is the email did not include a request for an unblock, it merely identified a parallel situation regarding another user. Perhaps not a big point, but if the editor actually did not request the unblock we shouldn't state that they did.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I think including a courtesy notice here is an excellent idea as there may be editors who frequent this page but missed the AN discussion; however,I think it should be written more neutrally.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not a pile on of hate, but I use the tool where clocked users are faded/italised/struck, and it is showing Riceissa as still blocked. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RazzSazz BLP vios at Alia Janine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The editor User:RazzSazz is a single-purpose account with extremely few edits and who is evidently a conflict-of-interest account. They have been slow-motion edit-warring to violate WP:BLP repeatedly. Primarily, they are adding false citations, reverting to them even after their falsehood has been pointed out. For example, the cites at their edit here — which they reverted to here — do not mention a single word about the educational claims RazzSazz makes. There's also a false citation for their claim of "11 schools", as well as blatant edit-warring to re-insert IMDb refs despite WP:RS/IMDB — with a snarky, uncivil edit-summary here.

Moreover, the editor refuses to respond to posts on their talk page or to discuss their issues on the article talk page. I've had to remove WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:PUFFERY, and it's clear this editor is attempting to use Wikipedia for whitewashing and promotional purposes, and not contributing otherwise.

I didn't want to bring them here, but this has been going on since April 29 and shows no sign of letting up. I don't know if a topic ban is in order, but the COI seems pretty blatant. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

accidentally archived to 953 without being resolved d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I've put the article on pending changes (the editor is not confirmed), that should hopefully sort out the BLP issues. If they persist after they are confirmed, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated personal attacks by new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everybody! This is the first time I am reporting anything, so I hope I'm doing it correctly. I am currently in dispute with Bulldozer20 over edits to Samsung Galaxy S8, in which the user is repeatedly using personal attacks and breaching edit-warring policy, while I am trying to engage the user to go to the talk page. Edits in particular: 1, 2, 3, and 4. LocalNet (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour break for those comments. Hopefully they calm down and work constructively, because the next block it's going to be a bit more permanent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) LocalNet (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A few minutes after Bulldozer20 was blocked, a brand new account, Clautist, was created and resumed the edit war. I blocked Clautist, and will extend Bulldozer20's block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but didn't want to take action myself. Thank you for taking care of it! :) LocalNet (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as Bulldozer just told LocalNet to kill themselves on their talk page (not to mention insta-socking after a block) an indef seems more prudent. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was just coming here to say that I did just that Capeo. I Revdel'd the edits, indeffed the user and restricted TPA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

They have access to a number of large ranges, so I suspect you will see them again if they're so inclined.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Rick, I didn't think the insult was revdel worthy or I wouldn't have repeated it. Feel free to remove my comment too if needed. Capeo (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah, you just reported the insult, not repeating word for word the comment, which is why I Revdel'd it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatant legal threat (and threats of other forms)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[63] -- "I will proceed forward with legal action". Page: Jack McCauley. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• OK, what do we do here? I've rev-delled "Jack McCauley"'s attempted outing of the editor that was making changes to "his" BLP. To be honest, the easiest action would be to indef both of them, but I'm aware that might be harsh on an editor that was only trying to "fix" his own article. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well the username alone is grounds for a block, as it could be someone posing as McCauley. This might be one we need to block, then refer to OTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thoughts, anyone? I agree with Rick, but any other options would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Not so sure about the username, though it would fit policy to get some verification, I won't be blocking it. I do wonder if there's some funny business going on at the article, and what that may be. The article, in relation to the comments, would be my main concern here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
        • User is threating to dox another user. Indef block is most likely needed. —JJBers 19:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Was the threat credible? The article doesnt appear to have any real issues other than being overly puffy and containing some dubious claims (inventor of the scrolling mouse feature). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
            • More legal threats. User is also now blocked. —JJBers 19:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Oh, goodness, no, the revdel'd edits contain explicit doxxing. We need to be sensitive about the concerns of article subjects, but not to the point of allowing them to harass and threaten our editors like that. Good block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Only in death That threat to out the user seemed to be very credible, and definitely gave a chilling effect. That, grouped with the next legal threat that JJBers just linked to has led me to indef the user. I did however write a comment on how they can reach out to OTRS, confirm their identity and work with Wikipedia to ensure the article's accuracy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No you misunderstood, I meant was the reason for the threat credible? (Per WP:DOLT) Assuming it was Jack McCauley. I just took a look at the revision history and it did seem a legitimate complaint under our sourcing and BLP policies. His family member's names are quite difficult to get hold of online and non-notable minors would be routinely removed as a BLP concern anyway. Likewise his net-worth would not be public (although a minimum could be informally guessed at from the Oculus buyout) Either way it looks like the basis for his complaint was legit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to mop out the doxxing via revdel? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Rev-deleted and Oversight requested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I know this is slightly off topic but I just read REVDEL and OS and am not so sure of the difference between the two. Is OS higher power and means things are totally Gone for Good, whereas revdel just hides stuff from normal users? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

For the most part yes, Oversighting prevents even admins from seeing the material in question, whereas a revdel can still be seen by admins. It's designed to limit the users that can see defamatory information to a bare minimum. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sort of like how the Vatican keeps the really good porn under lock and key so as not to endanger the faith and virtue of the flock. Revdel means you have to be ordained to see it; oversight puts it out of reach of all but cardinals and His Holiness. EEng 22:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ill deal with you in an hour d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EEng Dealt with :) d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borderline personal attacks

I don't know if this is the right place, or even if these are really personal attacks, but I am not happy with them, so I'd like to ask for outside input on how to deal with this, if at all. 112.211.214.39 (talk · contribs), who seems to be the same editor as Deisenbe (talk · contribs), although I stress the word "seems", first wrote this, which is still arguably okay, and then this, which I think is not okay any more. In the first edit he seems to claim rabbis don't know their stuff, while in the second edit he seems to make generalizations about rabbis and for unclear reasons makes incorrect assumptions about the ability of rabbis to edit Wikipedia. Are these edits okay or are they personal attacks? What, if anything, should I do about them? Debresser (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not that anonymous editor and have no idea who he is. What SPECIFIC TO ME are you objecting to?deisenbe (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above regarding the second edit. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this edit was inappropriate, in at least two ways. I have closed the discussion and asked Deisenbe not to do it again. John (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be zero tolerance for that kind of attack. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a mild aspersion, not a blatant personal attack. John's post on Deisenbe's talk page struck the right notes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Technically, those comments are not personal attacks, as they are addressing article content issues. The fact that they place those content issues at the feet of a particular user and are written in a manner that appears to address one user in an overly hostile manner on an article talk page means that they are at least uncivil, but (assuming Debresser actually is engaged in the kind of problematic editing mentioned in the linked diffs) they still do not rise to the level of personal attacks. And when one isn't sure whether something is meant as a personal attack or not (as the OP certainly appears not to be), the first stop should not be ANI. Debresser's first step should have been to reflect on whether there is merit to claims like you constantly look at written sources from long ago, and all but ignore what is going on today and Your claim that I should not have restored Catholicism because of talk page discussion is self-serving. The opposition is from you and only you. No one on the talk page supports you. You're the one being disruptive. and then, if one determines that they are indeed unjustified ad hominem remarks, request that they retract them. Debresser's first and only edit to Deisenbel's talk page before notifying them of this ANI discussion was more than two years ago. I don't see any need for admin action here, especially now that John has already done Debresser's job and asked Deisenbe to focus on content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did check myself to see if the accusations were correct, which they were not. Both of them. Remains only what you call incivility, and I called it in the header of this thread "borderline personal attack". I came here to ask for other editors' opinions, not asking for sanctions, and that has been clear to all here, so I think the claim that WP:ANI should not have been my first stop is not justified. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued exhibition of prejudice not acceptable on Wikipedia: Deisenbe opened a thread about the underlying content issue at WP:DRN. In that thread he again emphasizes the fact that I am a rabbi, and shows unacceptable prejudice against religious Jews. Please review the text, and decide for yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it perplexing that a user with multiple religious affiliation userboxes, including self-identification as a rabbi, complains when another editor says, "they are a rabbi." If you do not want your religious affiliation and position to be part of your wiki-identity, you could leave those off. If you do want them to be part of you wiki-identity, then I would expect other editors to interpret your postings in light of that self-identification. I see nothing in Deisenbe's posts referred to that say something like: "Rabbi's opinions are invalid because they are a rabbi." They are, rather, complaining more that "Rabbi thinks other opinions about Judaism are invalid because they do not match Rabbi's teachings." I don't think Deisenbe has substantiated that position, but unless I messed something, that is not the same as saying Deisenbe has made unacceptable religious-prejudice PAs. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with everybody knowing I am a rabbi. I do have a problem with an editor who says that because I am a rabbi, therefore I am not open to discussion, and implying basically in almost as many words that I can not be a good editor on Wikipedia because I am a rabbi. Because that is how I interpret "Its position, and his, is that Judaism is totally defined by texts from centuries ago. What Jews do or think about Judaism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is to him irrelevant. He is totally inflexible and will not compromise on anything.". Not to mention that this statement shows him to be rather ignorant of Judaism and its teachings. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Their comment was a violation of the widely-ignored principle, "play the ball not the man" (which is not to say that it violated WP:NPA). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:, thank you for the clarification. I would say you are partially justified in your interpretation but the end result is still in line with Mandruss's statement. That is, interpreting those statements as ".. because I am a rabbi, therefore I am not open to discussion.." is reasonable. It is, I feel obliged to say, slightly bizarre to anyone who knows anything about the tradition of Talmudic debate that Deisenbe seems to imply a rabbi is not open to discussion. That said, I don't think the interpretation of "...implying...that I can not be a good editor..." is justified by Deisenbe's statements, especially in the light of AGF. Not that my non-admin opinion has any intrinsic worth or influence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to allow for the notion, that I may be exaggerating. That is precisely why I came here, to ask for input, as can be seen from the careful header of this section. At the same time, I do think that Deisenbe's edits over the years, which I quoted below, make the case for a prejudiced editor with possibly a personal ax to grind with Orthodox Judaism. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I commend your care and I believe my answer above addresses that specific concern. I see another issue here of good faith, though. That is one of making assumptions about another editor's beliefs. Beliefs about beliefs, as it were. Deisenbe apparently believes that you believe secular Jews are not Jews at all. You apparently believe Deisenbe believes Haredi Jews are not qualified to edit on religious edits due to a minority and restrictive viewpoint. Both of these positions (assuming my beliefs about both beliefs about the corresponding beliefs (whew!) are correct) are not assuming good faith and should be abandoned. If that makes any sense at all outside my head. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I differ with that interpretation of AGF. Good faith goes to one's honesty and integrity, full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe I have a prejudice against "religious Jews", whatever that means. Religious Jews are welcome to write whatever they want about their religious beliefs or practices. What I object to is Debresser's intolerance of any other variety of Judaism. deisenbe (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if your assumption that I am intolerant is based on the claim that I don't consider non-Orthodox Jews - Jews, then I simply have no idea where you dug up so much horseshit. You seem to know less about Judaism than you think I do about Christianity. :) Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

He continues with completely off-limits questions on my talkpage, asking me to clarify my religious points of view.[64] Debresser (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there were four earlier discussion on that same Talk:Judaism and sexuality talkpage in which Deisenbe disagreed with me, from 2014, 2015, 2015 again, and one more in 2015, and then too Deisenbe tried to play the "you are a Haredi Jew and rabbi and have a rigid POV" card.[65][66] The second diff is especially informative. This editor seems to have a clear allergy against Orthodox Jews, but he shouldn't play that card to try and get his way on Wikipedia. Especially telling is his post "This article is about Judaism and sexuality. But what is Judaism?", which reads more like his personal credo than as a serious discussion. In short, this editor, and this editor alone is trying to push his personal conceptions and points of view, and is apparently frustrated that I disagree with him. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend stern warning: The diffs in the OP strike me as pretty typical "pushing the envelope" that people tend to do online when approaching a sensitive topic; rather than going full bore with the first post they tend to begin by vaguely mentioning the topic they want to address, and if nobody picks up on it, mention it again in a more focused manner. In normal situations this is a good thing, and indicative that an editor is sensibly attempting to avoid derailing the discussion by triggering controversy. Here, it is not, because it indicates the poster was seeking to make an issue of Debresser's status as a Rabbi to impugn, improperly, Debresser's opinions as biased or clouded by his POV. While there are some circumstances where it might be appropriate to suggest another editor check his or her POV based on his or her qualifications (this happens a lot in the ALTMED arena, though often in far too aggressive a manner), I believe it is highly inappropriate here because any reasonable editor should know that bringing up another editor's identification or life experiences as a Jew in arguing against that editor's participation anywhere is all but certain to trigger controversy, destabilize discussion, and bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Honestly, from the "pushing the envelope" I discuss above, I believe it's fair to infer that the editor had actual knowledge that bringing up Debresser's identity bore a high risk of destabilizing the discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the editorial process requires collegial interaction in order to resolve disputes. Arguments directed towards an editor's person are generally not helpful, even where another editor might have brought up his or her qualifications or identity first. Editors must strive to resolve disputes on the merits, and avoid conduct that is likely to seriously interfere with another editor's ability or willingness to participate on Wikipedia. Arguing about another editor's Jewish identity as pertaining to his or her ability to constructively contribute to an article, even an article about Judaism, is inappropriate. I believe Deisenbe should be given a stern warning, perhaps a final warning, with it noted that repetition should result in a topic ban or siteban.

  I believe this is the proper outcome even if we assume the anonymous editor is not Deisenbe, because Deisenbe's comment here, which specifically argues about Debresser's identity as a Haredi Rabbi as interfering with his ability to participate in the discussion, is itself unacceptable within the framework I discuss. Any reasonable editor should know better than to make this sort of argument because of the extremely high risk of destabilizing and derailing discussion. This is precisely why we have WP:NPA: Personal attacks, even if made alongside meritorious arguments, run an unacceptably high risk of derailing discussions and alienating editors. The same is true about arguments targeting an editor's personal identity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And another one: Seraphim System

Please see this edit. Saying "Since you self-identify as a rabbi, this does not appear to be a good faith mistake". Same talkpage, same issue, same pattern of hasty reverts that are not justified by policy. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see anything uncivil about that edit. An isolated and explained departure from AGF is nothing out of the ordinary. ANI also isn't the place to complain about each and every "borderline personal attack" that comes one's way. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

On the same page and about the same issue. That is not a departure from good faith. That is another editor catching on the prejudice of the previous editor. Which is precisely the reason prejudice should be fought from the very beginning. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point I would suggest WP:BOOMERANG for accusing editors of personal attacks when the comments are about content - since User:Debresser claims subject matter expertise, his use of a single cherry-picked quotation to insert his extraordinary POV claim without adequate sourcing appears to be outside the bounds of good faith. My comment was intended to be a civil warning about what this may look like to others. It is not acceptable to promote your own religious POV by inserting indequately sourced WP:SYNTH. We have asked him to provide additional balancing sources, and this is the second time he has responded by filing a AN/I complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That is one suspicious usage of the word "we"...

I refuted the WP:SYNTH argument on the talkpage. Please don't turn this into a content dispute.

The statement is not POV, and nobody has suggested it is. Not till now at least. May I also remind you that the statement was in the article for a long time (since the very creation of this article in 2010!) without any opposition at all, even before I added a source to it.

I added a source to a statement that was previously unsourced. I disagreed with you on the talkpage that the source is not good enough. Especially since one of your arguments against that source is that it is written by a rabbi! At the same time, that too is a content issue, and if you would find consensus for that opinion on the talkpage, then I'll try and find a better source. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You are the one bringing content disputes to AN. Rabbis are not experts in Christian theology, but besides that the source is being misrepresented to insert POV. You are incorrect in your assumption that all forms of Christianity share the same view about sex and original sin - Quakers are one example. I was only trying to politely bring your own bias to your attention.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That is another incorrect statement from you. I did not bring any content dispute here, just the behavioral one.

I also did not say that "all forms of Christianity share the same view about sex and original sin". I said that it is true for Christianity in general. As it is. With notable exceptions (you mentioned Quakers), which surely fall outside the scope of that article per WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes you actually did say that [[67]] - not to mention you keep restoring a section that is WP:SYNTH and fails verification based on the quote provided. As other editors have pointed out, most likely Rabbi Gold's quote is about the development of doctrine in a particular context, which you have left out. As a subject matter expert, you should be more sensitive to most to the fact that religious doctrines have at times diverged, split into new sects. You can not just say something is true for basically all of Judaism and all of Christianity - again you need a source for this, if you are using it as a reason for inclusion, which you are. You can not just ask all editors to simply accept your subject matter expertise. Maybe this is a good faith mistake, because sometimes subject matter experts can be too reliant on their own expertise on an issue. But we could have had this discussion on talk, instead of here at AN. What I said certainly wasn't meant as a personal attack, and I don't really think an AN complaint was necessary to resolve this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also I am sorry if you felt this was a personal attack or thought I was unwilling to discuss this with you, I absolutely value input from editors with different POV and sources with different POV. What I think is a problem is that you feel it is a "personal attack" when editors try to point out how your POV may be influencing your analysis and that you can't see the point other editors are trying to make about the current wording of the section, and that you don't see the problem with representing the opinion of a single scholar as a fact about "all of Judaism and all of Christianity" Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I indeed maintain that I do not have a POV on this, and that my opinion is the opinion of experts in this area. Which is why I added a source, to show I am right. Just now I added another 3, all stating clearly the same thing. You and Deisenbe have not shown a single source apart from a medieval Christian primary source which is limited to Catholicism alone. So who is the one who is looking only towards ancient sources, and not willing to be flexible? The fucking chutzpe of the two of you to accuse me of your own faults! And to use the fact that I am an Orthodox Jew as an argument against me, where the intellectual integrity of rabbinic Judaism stands opposed to the oppressive and dogmatic practices of the Christian Church! Now you really got me mad. Anyway, editors here will judge the behavioral issues with more detachment than I. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this wasn't a personal attack. I do think, however, it could have been better phrased in light of the above complaints. In part it reads to me like the fairly standard argument that another editor's conduct has pushed good faith to the limits. Most of us do this, and though it's probably not very productive when we do, it's not a personal attack. Moreover, the reference to Debresser's status as a Rabbi does not render it a personal attack given the context. The intent clearly was to say in light of the education and knowledge Rabbis possess, it stretches good faith to assume that Debresser fully agrees with the implications of the claim Seraphim System asserts to be incorrect. But, as I said, I think it could have been phrased differently, or better yet, simply left alone. As I say above, every reasonable editor should know better than to level criticism at another editor on grounds including or resembling protected class characteristics. But in this case, I think it's qualitatively different than the statements made in the section above. I also believe Debresser might have done better to ask for redaction before coming here. Rarely is an ANI thread or subthread started within minutes of an incident productive, and they often could have been resolved by discussion. I admit this is difficult to ask of an editor who believes he or she has been maligned on account of his religion, but I think that goes to whether a BOOMERANG should lie, which it should not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: In this case the content drew scrutiny of the man, not the man of the content. If the OP wishes to avoid having their partiality scrutinized, maybe they shouldn't be trying to paint a wide wall with a narrow brush. Open up a bit, take in the concerns of others and work through it. Don't just file all criticism as intolerance to ones racial, sexual or religious status. Maybe, just maybe, an expert on old sources is not the Go To for modern disposition. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring with 3RR violation

He is also edit warring about this, the discussion on the talkpage and this thread notwithstanding.[68][69] Debresser (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

At this point I think WP:BOOMERANG is necessary to prevent further disruption from User:Debresser bringing content disputes to AN/I or at least a warning that further frivolous complaints will result in a block. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Aren't you edit warring? You did it again, making a 4th revert in 24 hours, violating WP:3RR.[70] In view of his neglect of the ongoing discussion and this threat, I propose an immediate block. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed citations without removing content here [71][72], and I edited to better reflect the quote provided, which is about medieval Christian writers, and also corrected his typos [73] , and added a quote from a 13th c. Rabbi [74]. I don't think this is edit warring. I felt in this case I provided edit summaries that were detailed enough that it was not necessary to repeat them on the talk page. I made some changes incrementally to provide policy justifications for each one that could be discussed on talk - editing to improve an article should not be construed as edit warring where an editor is acting in good faith. These were normal edits (removing unnecessary stacked citations without removing content, fixing typos, and improving content that was restored without removing it) Debresser has reverted without giving any reason 4 times. I count 3 reverts on my part, and 4 from Debresser, noting that he even restored the original typos instead of constructively editing and accused me of "removing" information where I had simply added more information from the source instead of reverting his edit [75] [76] [77] [78] Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, you've broken 3RR as Seraphim documents above. Seraphim, you've also broken 3RR: first revert (appears to be a partial revert falling within 3RR), second revert, third revert (a partial revert made part of several consecutive edits), fourth revert. Page protection may be appropriate here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: The first diff was, I think, my first edit to the page - how is that a revert? As Debresser said that had been there since 2010 - we don't usually count that as a revert (at least I was told by admins in AE that this kind of removal does not count as a revert ie. If I remove content from a page, and it is restored, this is not a violation of the consensus clause because my first removal is not be counted as a revert) - Are you sure you linked to the right diff? Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed, that after his 4th revert, I also reverted. In any case, undoing both 4th reverts would bring us back to the same version we presently have, so apart from apologizing and saying I hadn't noticed it, there's not much I can do. Frankly I am taken aback a bit by this editor, who edit wars in disregard of ongoing discussion both on the talkpage and here. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As you correctly say, you removed a reference with the edit summary "WP:UNDUE again this is only one persons opinion".[79] What does WP:UNDUE have to do with one reference out of four? That was an unjustified edit if ever I saw one. I don't even begin to understand the reasoning behind it without assuming bad faith.

Then again you admit you removed a reference with the edit summary "the article doesn't provide author's name or sources for that statement".[80] So what of it that the article's author isn't indicated? So what of it if the article doesn't indicate a source. The article itself is the source. Another unjustified edit par excellence.

The worst thing is that you make all these incredible edits while there is a talkpage discussion and a WP:ANI thread open. Have you no fear? Debresser (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I also would not count Seraphim's first edit (22:06 May 1) as a revert, that material had been there for a long time. The other three (23:16, the four between 17:23 and 17:47 today, and 18:19) clearly are. Debresser has reverted four times (22:11 yesterday, 10:48, 18:01, 18:32). Debresser, I would strongly suggest you self-revert the last of your edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That edit removed content that was removed in the preceding weeks by others, see this edit and the many other edits to that paragraph in the preceding two weeks, and Seraphim System was aware of that, as his previous involvement on this article and his involvement on the talkpage prove. So it definitely counts as a revert, the first of his four. Black Kite, please be more careful before you make strong recommendations. Debresser (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition, as I already argued above, how else can I protect an article from an editor making edits ignoring the talkpage discussion? Not that I did this on purpose, I made an honest mistake, and I maintain he was the first to violate 3RR and reverting both edits now would no change anything, but still, the fact that I am dealing with an editor who makes unjustified edits while ignoring the discussion and warning on his talkpage and here, has to work in his disadvantage and my favor. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm...no I wasn't. I had never even seen that article before you posted your ANI report last night. I saw the POV template, and saw that on the talk page others had taken issue with balance problems and tried to address that particular issue, at which point you it turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND with repeated reversions without any policy justifications given. Above you say So what of it that the article's author isn't indicated? So what of it if the article doesn't indicate a source. The article itself is the source. WP:RS provides a lot of suggestions for how to evaluate secondary and tertiary sources (or maybe it is primary? - the point is an article that does not provide sources is not a secondary source) - Any decisions I made were entirely based on Wikipedia's core policies. Per WP:ONUS the burden to justify inclusion is on you. I don't think the fact that you have had problems with other editors on this page should be construed as reflecting favorably on your conduct here. That said I know very little about prior conflict on the page besides what was discussed last night here at AN (and that only generally, please do not take this to mean I dug up every diff that could possibly be relevant - if I am required to engage in article archaeology before making good faith edits, please let me know and I will be sure to do this from now on.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I came here only for the behavioral issues: mention of the fact that I am a rabbi in a disparaging way and edit warring. The statement in question has been in the article since 2010 and now has 4 good sources, and all objections I have shown that they are not even a matter of opinion, but simply incorrect according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If Seraphim System can refrain from removing things till such time as he can show a clear consensus based on arguments that actually make sense, and he and Deisenbe can acknowledge that their disparaging mentions of rabbis (both me and the rabbi who was quoted in one of the sources) are not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, then we can consider closing this thread. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: In the mean time Seraphim System was blocked for the period of a week as a suspected sock.[81][82] Debresser (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blanking at James McNally (musician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP editor claiming to be James McNally is edit-warring to blank to page James McNally (musician), claiming that it is incorrect. There are at least some references on the page - although much on this BLP does not appear to be sourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed down the unsourced content and gave the article a shot at expansion, but to be honest I'm not convinced he's notable independently of his projects (The Pogues and Afro Celt Sound System). Sam Walton (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This conversation was just blanked by D'SuperHeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), their only edit so far. Could be worth keeping an eye on this account. — Richard BB 13:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

An indeff and notification of OTRS? I doubt that the IP and SuperHeroo are really James, a) really juvenile username unbecoming of a professional musician. b) no legal threats. While this is ABF and a possible violation of NPA, the immaturity of the IP and account seem to point more at a fanboy than the actual BLP subject. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sock of Nsmutte, should be blocked immediately. —JJBers 14:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automated canvassing by User:Primefac

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is what you're supposed to do. There is no way on earth this could be construed as canvassing. ‑ Iridescent 00:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Using WP:AWB, this user canvassed on an extreme number of wikiprojects(contribs;example). This contributes towards canvassing as WP:VOTESTACKING of people interested in sports; as well as mass posting. The RFC is linked at WP:CENT to assure partipiciation, and was deliberately not linked to wikiprojects to avoid canvassing/local consensus. Sufficient warnings were ignored and removed:[83]. This should be resolved as soon as possible.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Burning Pillar How does one canvas using AWB exactly? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Somehow I think notifying 110 WikiProjects moves past canvassing and onto "has no life". More seriously, no, this was not canvassing. It is entirely appropriate to post a neutrally worded message to wikiprojects associated with sports when a RFC is started on the subject of sport. "Limited posting" of a "neutral" message in a "nonpartisan" way "open"ly is specifically allowed. "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". Being a member of a WikiProject in sports does not mean they all hold the same view on the existing notability guideline. Your "warnings" on the other hand was totally inappropriate. -- KTC (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Piling on - this is not what canvassing is. I have to also question the motivation behind filing an RfC where the default position is "repeal all the guidelines" and keeping it as secret as possible. — foxj 23:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Note: AfDs are also usually announced on relevant Wikiprojects and sorting lists, which is considered good practice as well. — PaleoNeonate — 23:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Notifying relevant Wikiprojects with a neutral message about a relevant RfC is a Good Thing and should encouraged to ensure maximum participation from knowledgeable editors, it is not canvassing. Normally there wont be 110 relevant WikiProjects but this is a very wide ranging RfC and sport is a very popular topic, so in this case there really are that many. I would also like to know the answer to foxj's question. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)Users active in local sports wikiprojects have a higher chance to feel strongly about a sport than the general community. This means that if you notify them, the RFC will probably be disturbed by their WP:BIAS. And this is prohibited as votestacking per WP:CANVASS. Posting something on WP:CENT is the direct opposite of keeping something secret. I also wonder why you think that the default position is "repeal all the guidelines"; I don't think it is.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) This isn't canvasing. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC) "who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". Are you really suggesting that the members of the those WikiProjects all hold the same opinion on those guidelines? -- KTC (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Can we have a SNOW close on this, please? B.P., you're simply unfamiliar with how things are done around here. You need to trust the word of more experienced editors. EEng 23:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Our policies must sure be ocnfusing if all the stuff at the top of this appears the proper way to do something. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Well it certainly seems to have ocnfused the hell out of you, L3X1. EEng 00:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Again? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to restart this, but would someone a little bolder than me fix the title of the RfC which is

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Global consensus check:Sports notability guideline

How about just:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sports notability guideline

Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, this is only the en.wiki anyway. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm bold enough to do it. Done. SkyWarrior 00:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Danke. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandal sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AIV backlog, and User:Globox Barbara Rayman Teensy is a very DUCKy sock of the indeffed User:Slime 123 Globox Barbara Rayman. I requested CU, but it can be passed for duck. Its pretty obvious. And I'm not notifying them. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this could just be block evasion, I mean they were just blocked tonight. —JJBers 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. They're also not to bright in the evasion dept. but FRIJOLES. d.g. L3X1 (distant write)

 Looks like a duck to me -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 01:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and your ES there is awesome! SPI closed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Off topic: The user seems to like slime a lot. —JJBers 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I finally downshifted my brain, and just now realised how similar their names are. It wasn't until I reported it that i noticed the Globox, and it was just now i realised that 75% is common. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nazi troll has returned to the humanities refdesk... agaaaaain...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The question relating to Judaism and usury by Tileionic231 has all the hallmarks of the Nazi troll. If confirmed, please delete and block? Eliyohub (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Deleted and blocked. Pretty obvious. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint reporting of User:Rajeshbieee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First of all, this user made a page which holds no significance as well he claims to keep the page as it has "known star cast" which is somehow seems promotional. And Admins i also keep this fact, this user is a de-facto sock of User:Gantlet. Another thing i would like to remind "admins" we are not kind of promotional site as per WP:NOT policy. Bearian even said as per WP:HAMMER this article must be deleted. If this WP:NOT policy is not sufficient and sock will defend (actually promote) articles, what will be the verdict? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnotable article; yes. Old sock that was allowed to edit again; fine. Defending a article; I really don't think so. Promotional; if you really think 2 sentences is promotion, that pretty odd. Unless it's that type where just the––Wait, the movie itself doesn't exist.
This user is fine, the the article should be deleted, but that should be it. —JJBers 13:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:174.117.141.172

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This guy keep on removing the nationality of the player in the topic sentence, defy consensus of Footy project. He even requested the same treatment as Diego Costa (...is a footballer who plays for XYZ club and ABC national team) but defy the suggestion himself. I am not sure why in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, no comment for the request and just removed by Ronhjones Matthew_hk tc 14:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re-reported. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban

Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) was banned from editing dab pages in February 2016. They are currently involved in a messy repeated AfD for a dab page, in the course of which they substantially altered the content of the page while nominating it (for the 2nd time) for AfD.

Perhaps their ban on editing dab pages should be extended to a ban on nominating dab pages for any sort of deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD), to keep them away from this area of editing in which they seem to cause problems for the encyclopedia. Failing that, they need to be reminded that editing a dab page is editing a dab page, even if the same edit nominates it for AfD. PamD 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, as Roman Spinner seems unclear about it too, the diff I cited in the initial post was not just adding an AfD header: he made substantial changes to the dab page in the same edit. PamD 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman has now explained below that the substantial edit was accidental. It illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edit, including those which are automated or shortcuts. PamD 12:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an amendment to the original ban. I believe it left him able to edit on disambiguation talk pages. This has led to many move discussions, and I think the ban should included deletion discussions and talk pages. One example of my concern is Katharine Blake which Roman nominated for speedy deletion three times [84] (it is a redirect to a dab), and created move discussions (see Talk:Catherine Blake and Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation), keeping on and on despite lack of support. Roman just doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, i believe you misremember the result; the linked discussion, while the initial proposal was not specific about talk pages, modified the proposal to explicitly include them, which Katie's close clearly states. That minor point aside, however, i would fully support the proposal above, to ban Roman from disambiguation altogether. Some of his work is useful, but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

LindsayH, I appreciate your kind characterization at the start of the sentence, "Some of his work is useful", however the remainder of the sentence, "but the continued wrong actions, even after being shown they are wrong, is not helpful at all, and the project should be protected from them", leaves me puzzled. Other than this unfortunate sole exception over the entire course of the year and two months from the time the dab page topic ban was imposed, what are those "continued wrong actions" that threaten Wikipedia's integrity and where/how has it been "shown that they are wrong"? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from OP: given Roman's replies and explanation of the accidental nature of his substantial edit to a dab page, I'd be happy to see this dicussion closed now with no further action - but other editors @Boleyn: @Ivanvector: @Boing! said Zebedee: @LindsayH:might wish to continue. PamD 14:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm happy to close this now - after the comments below, I agree there's no further action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine by me. To my mind, a ban from editing disambiguation pages includes a restriction from discussion processes which affect their content, such as suggesting that two dab pages be merged, but if that is not the intent behind the topic ban (I have not read that discussion in great detail) then no further sanction is required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I disagree, PamD, Ivanvector, Boing! said Zebedee, LindsayH. The original ban stated: Consensus is clear: Roman Spinner is banned from editing disambiguation pages and their associated talk pages (closed by KrakatoaKatie. This includes creating new dab pages. Although no alternative mechanism to allow RS to propose changes to dab pages was discussed, I suggest that Roman Spinner create a sandbox for that purpose if he so desires. Roman has continually broken this ANI by editing their 'associated talk pages', more than a dozen times in the last month. This is not a one-off infraction of the last ANI. I suggest if Roman sees something of concern, he picks an editor to drop a line to and ask to look at it. This is a persistent violation of the original ANI - I propose simply that he is made to keep to the original decision of the original ANI. Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner's reply

After seeing the proposed draconian editing sanctions mentioned above, I must at least remind all participants in this discussion that, in the one year and two months that my topic ban has lasted, this is the first and only dab which I have edited. Thus, even the section header, "Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban", may be modified to "…has edited one page…"

Since it wasn't mentioned in the above discussion, I should also indicate, for the record, that the topic ban was solely related to length of dab page entries and did not involve any interaction infractions such as incivility, harassment, edit warring, etc. In fact, during the 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia on a nearly-daily basis, the February 2016 ANI and the related one above, are the only instances that I been taken to ANI. Also, the 48-hour ban that has just ended is the first and only time that I have been banned.

The regrettable and impulsive decision to edit the Ivan Šarić dab page stemmed from frustration at my inability to call attention regarding the need for a merger of the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dabs and, after being informed that Talk:Ivan Šarić#Requested move 6 April 2017 is not the appropriate venue and, subsequently, after the deletion of the merger tags I had placed at the two dabs, I decided to try the AfD.

Even though this decision brought me the 48-hour ban and the above threats of editing sanctions, if there is at least a bright spot in this, it is that the resulting attention brought help from Ivanvector who did exactly what needed to be done. If not for that, there would still be two dab pages where one would suffice.

The only other complaint mentioned above appears to be related to my earlier nomination of Catherine Blake which seems an odd choice to bring up as an example since Boleyn was the first editor at that discussion who offered to support a variant of my nomination. My proposals at those nominations also had some additional support and there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing or inappropriateness on my part.

Taking a wider view, a single-page violation of the topic ban over a period of 14 months, with the violation (insertion of AfD template) not even related to the reason for the ban (length of dab page entries) should not bring forth threats of a much-wider editing ban in areas (nominations, voting, discussions) where I may be able to contribute. Those areas are completely unrelated to the very-narrowly formulated ban and no arguments above specify why, in addition to the 48-hour ban, I should be further sanctioned in such a harsh manner. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the above The diff I cited in the initial post here was not just "insertion of AfD template": you substantially altered the dab page at the same time. PamD 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In attempting to make my reply, above, as brief as possible while including all the key elements, I omitted an explanation relating to your lead paragraph mention that I "substantially altered the content" of the dab page. As I previously indicated, I made no edits to the content of the Ivan Šarić dab page and the addition of the AfD template represented the sole change I made there. Unfortunately, however, instead of adding the AfD template manually at 19:05, 23 April 2017, I took the shortcut of clicking on my earlier edit of 05:27, 23 April 2017 without realizing that in between those two timestamps, three edits had already been made to the page. Thus, I accidentally restored the page to its 05:27, 23 April 2017 form and did not know that it also automatically resulted in those changes until you pointed it out. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah. That illustrates the importance of checking the effect of any edits one does, especially using any sort of automation or "shortcut". That substantial edit of yours, accidental as it may have been, was the main thing which triggered this whole thread. PamD 12:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Response from another editor

Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I participated at the Talk:Ivan Šarić RM, and I agree that Roman messed the followup badly – instead of just redirecting one dab to the other (a routine action that emerged from the discussion, and that just nobody took upon themselves to execute), he opened no less than two consecutive AfDs. Still, I think the complete topic ban on dab pages is a bit of overkill. Those RM proposals were all within reason, and the last two were closed in favor of his proposed move, while the Talk:Kalinin one was rejected largely on procedural grounds (that mass nomination was inappropriate). I am not aware of history of his topic ban. No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the RM proposals. As for the Ivan Šarić AfD, I did indeed mess up badly on that one and I apologize to all participants here for having to spend time discussing it as a result. In my frustration at being prevented by the topic ban from merging the Ivan Saric and Ivan Šarić dab as was ultimately done so quickly and easily by Ivanvector, I took the unwise and rash step of re-adding the AfD template, instead of the wise step of posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation and asking other Wikipedians for help in unifying the two dabs.

However, I would like to assure participants that such rashness is very atypical of me and represents a nearly unique occurrence. In my entire 11 years and 3 months on Wikipedia, I have never engaged in edit warring, 3RR or incivility and certainly have no pattern of any such behavior. The topic ban (with length of dab entries as the sole reason) has already lasted a year and two months and this single unfortunate incident should not be used as a reason for expanding the ban and barring me from editing in ever-wider swaths of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• We done here? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner topic ban modification proposal (edit break)

• Support modifing TBan to "broadly construed". This is crazy stuff. Those RMs were a complete waste of time. There is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from dabs. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the current issue, as it was brought to ANI, had been entirely focused upon the editing of a single dab page — Ivan Šarić — with no complaints raised regarding the length of individual entries on that page. Moreover, creation of RMs or participation in RMs had no connection with the reason for the topic ban which solely concerned the length of dab page entries. Nor has anyone had any complaints regarding the content of argumentation within the RM discussions. In fact, among the five RMs mentioned above, two (Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball)) are not even dab pages. Another one among those five RMs mentioned above — Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation) — I did not even initiate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To repeat what Boleyn said above, "Just looking at your edits for the last 3 weeks, I saw 13 separate bits of editing around dabs from you: 2 AfDs and 11 move proposals which involved moving dabs - There was the proposed move of 7 dabs at Talk:Kalinin, Talk:Pamela Lee (disambiguation), Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Talk:Dennis Johnson (disambiguation), Talk:Don Mason (baseball). Of the 13, 12 were closed as a straight no or no consensus. I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.

I would also say that the behaviour that led to the last ANI was not so much the overlengthy entries, but that you just wouldn't listen, over a period of years. Your response gives me no indication that there has been a change. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)". Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters. As I mentioned above, there is really no sound or logical reason that any editor cannot stay away from disambiguations. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support this proposal - closer please note I've both proposed this and retracted the proposal above, but on reading the additional comments posted by Boleyn and Softlavender afterwards, as well as reviewing the original close, I have to agree that a more broad Tban is necessary. The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem. Modifying the topic ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed" makes very clear that Roman Spinner may not participate in changes to disambiguation pages by any means. The only exception I propose is clear permission to create or modify a wikilink to a disambiguation page, as editing could be quite difficult otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so. I again point out that this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI. I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring. Bearing in mind that the topic ban was not kept to by Roman, I think he is lucky the proposal is just to make the wording clearer. Although I pointed out the 13 infractions in the last 3 weeks, he has persistently edited dab talk pages over the time of his topic ban. I also fail to see how he has struggled to avoid getting involved with dabs when there is so much else to do on Wikipedia. I support the rewording of the original ban to 'broadly construed', as the original ban on editing 'associated talk pages' has been ignored and Roman is returning to the issue of disambiguation, often several times a week, despite the topic ban. I wish him well in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but this has been going on for years and is absolutely ridiculous. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Response from Roman Spinner. Although I posted a general overview below ("Additional statement from Roman Spinner"), it did not directly address the misperceptions mentioned immediately above, which do require a specific explanation.

1) The initial proposal for the February 2016 topic ban concerned solely dab pages. During the discussion, another participant proposed expanding it to include dab talk pages, but no one went any further. The closing of that topic ban mentions dab pages and dab talk pages, but no other pages. Thus, even if it is confirmed that the topic ban does indeed extend to participation in RMs on dab talk pages, it should still be obvious that I violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the topic ban by participating in AfDs or other dab-related discussions which are not situated upon dab talk pages. After all, the intent of the ban was never to bar me from all dab-related pages and topics, but only from editing dab pages and their talk pages.

2) As I previously pointed out, there are only five titles presented above as examples of my RM participation, and two of those — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — are not even dab pages. My pointing this out brought the response, "Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. You should not be initiating, participating, or editing in those matters.", which can be countered with the simple question, "Why?" After all, the topic ban never indicated that I did anything improper outside of dab pages and therefore there was no reason to ban me from other pages.

3) Another contention, "The original topic ban restricted Roman Spinner from edits to dab pages and their talk pages, but did not address discussions related to disambiguation pages in other locations (such as in XfD venues or requested moves), and in effect this has left a loophole through which he has been able to continue editing dabs by proxy. However, it is clear from that discussion that the community expressed frustration with Roman Spinner's edits related to the disambiguation function rather than specifically from disambiguation pages, which is not covered in the wording of KrakatoaKatie's closing statement. It's clear from this discussion that his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", is particularly mystifying since there is no such loophole. AfDs do not take place on dab talk pages and are concerned not with individual entries on the page, but with the deletion of the entire page. RMs, which do take place on dab talk pages, also are not concerned with editing of individual entries, but solely with renaming the page's main title header. Thus, there is no manner through which the content of a dab page may be edited by proxy.

4) Continuing with 3), I am not aware of any complaint during the 2016 ANI regarding disambiguation "function" — the entire topic ban was based solely upon the length of dab page entries. Finally in 3), how is it clear that my issues regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem? A mistake upon a single dab page and participation in RMs situated upon dab talk pages are the sole problems mentioned. That single dab page edit (placement of AfD template — nothing related to length of entries) caused me to receive the first editing ban in the entire 11 years and 3 months that I have edited Wikipedia. As for dab talk page-based discussions and RMs, if the closing admin decides that those are part of the topic ban, then I will no longer participate in anything that is based within dab talk pages. However, as for "his edits regarding disambiguation continue to be a problem.", which edits are those? Other than participation in RMs, which edits are in question and what is the problem?

5) Lastly, Boleyn's complaint that "Roman was banned from editing dabs and their associated talk pages, but has continued to do so", disregards that the single edit which brought this discussion was a one-time occurrence that resulted in a 48-hour ban, and the RMs involved strictly discussions and no editing of dab page entries. As for, "this ban was put in place because Roman just refused to listen, despite many warnings over a number of years, which unfortunately resulted, eventually, in ANI", between my first edit on January 22, 2006 and 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, leaving, in nearly every case, gentle reminders, rather than warnings. I responded to each of the 4 editors, explaining how I measure the length of my edits and other details and was not issued any warnings — certainly none that would indicate that I was in danger of receiving a topic ban.

6) The following statement certainly needs to be addressed, "I would also say that edit warring and incivility are present, from my perspective. Refusing to listen to other editors and continuing to change pages to how you want them is not civil. If warned about editing for one dab, stopping but then doing exactly the same on another dab the next day, is a form of edit warring.". I sympathize with these feelings and regret that my edits led to the point that such sentiments needed to be expressed. However, we cannot start redefining what edit warring and incivility mean in Wikipedia terms. Wiki editors hold a variety of differing views and disagreeing on this topic with only 4 Wikipedians in my first ten years of editing, should not be made to seem that I was opposing a groundswell of opinion.

7) Honest disagreement on an issue cannot be classified as incivility, although our disagreement regarding the length of dab page entries has not existed since February 2016 and I furthermore regret not accepting Boleyn's arguments posted on my talk page three years ago — not merely because it would have prevented the ANI problem, but basically due to those arguments standing on their own merits. As for edit warring, in my entire time with Wikipedia, I have never engaged in such behavior and, unlike the social, political or scientific edit warriors who clearly violate NPOV by favoring their own viewpoints and reinserting those viewpoints using 3RR, when, in the past, I edited dab pages, no one ever complained of NPOV violations or reinsertion of text in a manner consistent with edit warring.

8) Ultimately, however, other than the element of punishment for the length of my pre-2016 dab page entries, what is the reason for the insistence upon a pound of editing flesh beyond the recently-concluded 48-hour editing ban. No one has even specified whether or how my participation in RMs, including those located within dab talk pages, has in any way impacted Wikipedia's integrity or caused distress for any Wikipedian. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, Despite your claims to the contrary, all of those, including Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) very definitely were directly about disambiguation pages. All anybody has to do is click the links and search for your name to see that. Moreover, in addition to that repeated misrepresentation, your interminable walls of text here are not helping your case. Softlavender (talk)

Since the word "misrepresentation" has been put forth, it needs to be pointed out that it is, in fact, a misrepresentation to submit the edits I made to Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) as examples of my violating the ban against editing dab pages. Since neither one of those is a dab page, therefore I did not violate the ban by editing those two pages. When walls of text are needed to counter unfounded accusations, then walls of text have to be submitted. The explanation here, however, is as short and simple as it needs to be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It was and is a misrepresentation to repeatedly claim (three times now so far) that those posts are not very definitely directly about disambiguation pages. That is why it is being proposed that your topic ban wording be changed to add "broadly construed", because you seem to not be able to resist editing disruptively concerning disambiguation pages, whether directly (on the page or talk itself) or indirectly (via RMs and related discussions). Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not simply claiming, but stating directly, that without any doubt, the two pages in question are not disambiguation pages and that therefore I did not violate the wording of the ban on editing disambiguation pages by editing those two pages. Of course, there is a disambiguation element inherent in the discussions on those two pages, but there is no indication that the narrowly focused ban was meant to bar me from editing non-dab pages or participating in dab-related discussions since I was never accused of being a general disruptor of dabs, but simply of creating overlong dab page entries.

As for the constantly-repeated unsubstantiated charge of "editing disruptively", I challenge anyone to point out a disruptive edit I have made. If the length of my dab page entries prior to the February 2016 ANI is considered to be disruptive, then at least any allegedly "disruptive" edits I am supposed to have made in the year and three months since then. The single dab page that I have edited since February 2016, Ivan Saric, is of course an unfortunate exception for which I have apologized, but a single exception (which was unrelated, it needs to be stressed, to the length of dab page entries) cannot be considered to represent a pattern of disruption. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs, that is why we are requesting that the TBan be reworded to include the words "broadly construed". Softlavender (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, Roman, you're just not listening. The original ANI found your edits disruptive. You were given a topic ban you have not kept to. Although I pointed out the 13 pages you have edited in violation of editing dabs and their associated talk pages, that was just for the last three weeks. Looking back in your user contributions shows you regularly, usually weekly, editing dab talk pages. There is no point re-debating the original ANI - there were concerns about your editing of the talk pages and that's why it was explicitly banned. If you had refrained for a year and then asked for that to be lifted, that would be different. Instead, you ignored it. You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week! Ignoring an ANI decision is disruptive, full stop (exemplified by the fact we're all wasting our time here). You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors. Can we just wrap this up now? After years of interacting with Roman, I see no attitude change and no chance he's going to really reflect on this, so rewording of his ongoing topic ban is the only option and not a harsh one given his persistent breaking of the ban on editing dab talk pages. Again, I genuinely wish you luck in other areas of the encyclopaedia, but you need to let disambiguation-related topics go. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose expanding the ban; this would effectively bar Roman Spinner from participating in requested move discussions where dab pages may be affected. They have routinely contributed to the RM process constructively before and after the ban. I'd go so far as to suggest that the condition that they avoids dab page talk pages be removed altogether. The crux of the problem was edits to the pages themselves (and not listening to criticism), not talk page edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to Cúchullain for his very kind words. I also feel that after years of interaction, I must reply to Boleyn's above comment.

Again, Boleyn, I regret that you feel everyone's time is being wasted here (there are 25 other items on today's ANI agenda), but there is nothing to be gained for yourself or for Wikipedia by pursuing the call for a pound of flesh so relentlessly. Yes, of course, all you want is for me to keep to the conditions of the ANI, but there is really no need to make it into a personal crusade. As you well know, search as you may, that other than this single unfortunate miscalculation (which did not involve the reason for the February 2016 ANI — overlong dab page entries), I have not edited any dab pages for a year and three months. At a point when everyone else in this ANI was satisfied, it shouldn't have to have been necessary for you to go into punishment overkill mode.

However, for you, everyone else reading this, as well as for the closing, I do need to address the points you have made above. First of all, the original ANI was exclusively about overlong dab page entries and not about the broad topic of "disruptive editing", since I've never engaged in such editing. If that phrase was used at all, it was because some editors may have declared the overlong entries to be disruptive. As you well know, I addressed you directly at that ANI and declared that all my future dab page entries will be pared to the bone — basically two to four words — thus making the point of the ANI moot — other than for punishment, of course, with the ban against editing dab pages imposed nonetheless. Dab talk pages were not mentioned in the ANI submission and were added as an afterthought mid-discussion. There were no "concerns", other than the overlong entries.

Most inappropriate, however, are your repeated attempts to influence opinion here by submitting inaccurate statistics. Such statements as "You keep saying there was a single exception - it has been every week!. and, repeated by Softlavender, directly above your statement, "The 13 items in just the last three weeks alone, mentioned by Boleyn, were disruptive and wasted the community's time. They all involved dabs. All of this content is deeply misleading since it all refers to a single venue, WP:Requested moves.

Other than the mentioned single exception, the only complaint seems to be my participation in a handful of RM discussions which were held within dab talk pages. Only 5, not 13, examples of such RM participations were submitted and, to inflate even that small number, two of those were non-dab pages — Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Talk:Don Mason (baseball) — but were nevertheless supposed to represent examples of my violating the topic ban. In actuality, although referenced as a "topic ban", that ban is very narrowly specified as solely referring to "dab pages and their associated talk pages", not to every page with a parenthetical qualifier in its main title header.

Another attempt to influence opinion is through a misreading of the past. When you state, "You mention that only 4 editors sent you messages about your editing of dabs against consensus - that excludes the many which were on the talk pages of the dabs themselves (I remember, as I left several). You just don't listen to other editors., what you really mean is that I don't listen to you. You would be hard put to find a single editor who left a dab talk page comment relating to my edits. Even you, yourself, left no more than one or two dab talk page comments, occupying yourself primarily with deleting all my dab page and talk page contributions using WP:TWINKLE, without even bothering to read them and incorporate any of the additions and corrections (such as duplicate names or circular redirects) that I had made. A number of those mistakes which you restored to the dab pages (such as the circular redirect at The Young Lovers#Other) are still there — uncorrected years later, even when I specifically pointed it out on three separate occasions in that page's revision history. I will leave it to others to decide the disruptive aspect of such editing.

In retrospect, however, I do sincerely regret not complying with your heartfelt posting on my talk page in 2014, not merely to have prevented the two ANIs and moved forward the ultimate inevitable compliance, but because the points that you made were reasonable and sensible. You have been one of the most productive contributors to Wikipedia and I thank you for having devoted such a major portion of your life and time to its expansion and improvement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Roman, this is a real case of WP:Wall of text and makes it very difficult for people to contribute properly to the discussion. Your recollection of our past interactions is simply untrue, but I am not going over it yet again, this was already discussed and assessed at ANI, resulting in your topic ban. Cuchullain, no one's suggesting that Roman has never made a constructive edit to a dab page or dab talk page, but that doesn't outweigh the damage caused or the fact he has not kept to the original ban. The crux of the issue was his editing of dabs, you're quite right, but there were good reasons dab talk pages were included, and there was very much a problem with them. Some of the issues were like those at Katharine Blake [85], proposing a speedy deletion/move three times for same reason despite them being deleted. Others were for copying his 'improved' edits to the dab page on many dabs after removal for a discussion on whether they were better, although he didn't (although advised several times to) start a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the active Wikiproject Disambiguation, to discuss entry lengths. I'm trying (and not quite succeeding) to avoid being led off on the tangent of rehashing why the ban was put in place, but it was for good reason, based on years of editing dabs and their associated talk pages and paying no heed to consensus. Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn: I'm not seeing any evidence that Roman Spinner has caused disruption by editing talk pages or participating in RMs since the ban was implemented. On the other hand, I've seen them participate productively and offer valuable input at dozens of RMs, including those where dab pages would be affected. As this proposed ban increase would preclude them from editing in a way where they continue to be productive, it should not be implemented.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again I thank Cúchullain for his continued kind words and once again I must, unfortunately, respond to Boleyn's misleading characterizations of my edits.

Boleyn, I deeply regret that your need to see me further punished is so relentlessly obsessive. You must feel that all that is needed is a constant repetition of "Roman just doesn't listen" or "Roman has ignored numerous warnings" and you will be believed simply on the basis of such repetition and one or two misleading examples. You write, "Your recollection of our past interactions is simply untrue, but I am not going over it yet again, this was already discussed and assessed at ANI, resulting in your topic ban, but this is not a case of dueling truths or alternative truths, but only about simple facts. The ANI was called solely on a complaint regarding the length of my dab page entries and the closing decision was based upon that issue.

As for my "walls of text" here, I had hoped that by dividing the points into bite-size pieces, the text would be easier for you and others to peruse. Take any one piece — each one clears a misunderstanding. Only one piece in that "wall of text", the paragraph starting with the words, "Another attempt.." was about our past interactions and was meant to display that it is you who doesn't listen — when, three times, at widely-spaced intervals over a period of 20 months, — I pointed out in the edit summary that you have created a circular redirect, you reverted me three times without ever bothering to correct the mistake, which is still uncorrected today, more than three years after I called attention to it. There are a number of other such examples where you used TWINKLE to revert all my corrections and additions and then make no changes of your own, thus leaving the original mistakes uncorrected.

All other sections, of what you see as "wall of text", concern the misleading examples you have provided to bolster support for your current calls for punishment. The same pattern unfortunately continues in your reply to Cúchullain, above. It is inexplicable that you continue bringing up Catherine Blake when there is absolutely no consensus that she is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there and you yourself wrote here, "I would support a move from Catherine Blake (disambiguation) to Katherine Blake, and Catherine Blake to Catherine Blake (wife of William Blake). People unsure of the spelling are highly likely to type in 'Catherine' and end up at Blake's wife's page. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC). I subsequently submitted each of those moves — 1 and 2 — and yet you did not support either one.

Finally and, most misleadingly, you keep insisting that I "didn't (although advised several times to) start a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the active Wikiproject Disambiguation and that I was "paying no heed to consensus, again presenting the impression that I ignored all advice. Once again I reiterate that between my first edit on January 22, 2006 and my 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only you and three other Wikipedians posted on my talk page regarding the length of my dab page entries, and the postings of those three other Wikipedians were far from any warnings, but simply gentle questions regarding the length.

The complaint, "Others [other issues/other complaints] were for copying his 'improved' edits to the dab page on many dabs after removal for a discussion on whether they were better [you must obviously mean "edits to the dab talk page"], should be seen in light of the fact that there is not a single posting to be found — not even from you — upon any individual dab talk page regarding the length of my edits. In fact, you simply deleted (usually using TWINKLE) almost all my explanatory dab talk page postings, in clear violation of dab page etiquette (my postings did not contain copyright violations, personal attacks, incivility or anything else discouraged by guidelines) and did so without leaving, on that dab talk page, any posting of your own.

As for "paying no heed to consensus", other than the 4 Wikipedians in 10 years, no one else left any messages anywhere regarding the length of my dab entries. When the ANI consensus did develop, less than two months after my 10th WikiBirthday, I immediately agreed, at that ANI, that the only dab page entries I would create in the future would be ones that are "pared to the bone" (bearing a two- to four-word description). Thus, any suggestion that I don't listen to "numerous warnings" or "pay no heed to consensus" is completely misinformed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional statement from Roman Spinner

1) The above comments have left the completely unfounded impression that I must be a serial violator of disambiguation page content, that I must regularly disregard numerous postings of advice and warning addressed to me, that I must repeatedly do the wrong thing, that I simply don't get it and that the only way to maintain Wikipedia's integrity in this area is to completely bar me from having any contact with dab pages, including banning from participation in voting and discussions related to dab pages.

2) Since the comments don't directly address the details of my ban, let me reiterate once again that the sole reason I was brought to ANI in February 2016 and ultimately topic banned was the length of my dab page entries.

3) At the time I made my first edit, on January 22, 2006, dab pages were fairly unstructured, with a number of entries presented in an overlong manner. I took the more-detailed entries as a model for creating my own dab page entries, but limited the length of my entries to three-quarters of a single line of text, as it appeared on my screen. Between January 22, 2006 and my 10th WikiBirthday on January 22, 2016, only 4 Wikipedians posted on my talk page, mentioning that my dab page entries tended to be overly long. I responded to each of the 4 editors, taking care to explain in detail my dab page editing style. Even more tellingly, during a four-year period, between 2008 and 2012, when I edited hundreds of dab pages, not a single Wikipedian communicated with me on the subject.

4) In fact, the first time I encountered sustained opposition regarding the length of my dab page entries was 3 weeks after my 10th Wikibirthday when I was taken to ANI and the discussion participants roundly disagreed with the length of my entries and voted to ban me from editing dab pages.

5) As can be seen in that February 2016 discussion, Boleyn made a comment which ended with a question directed at me, "Are you going to stop editing dab pages in this way? Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)". My reply was, "Yes, of course, I will stop. Judging by the comments, I am on the losing side of this argument. As I wrote near the end of my April 2014 lengthy reply to your posting, "[T]hese disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one…" Faced with a chorus of disapproval, it would be at least counterproductive, if not masochistic, to expend so much energy/effort for such meager effect. All my future entries will be pared to the bone -- vital dates/defining date, nationality and profession/function/venue. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)".

7) My reply, however, made no difference and the ban was implemented.

8) On a purely objective level, other than for the element of continued punishment, there has been no need for the topic ban since the day it was imposed, and the notion that I "don't listen" or that I "can't help myself" stems from conflating the topic of longer entries with the experience of typical topic bans imposed upon the social, historical, scientific or linguistic edit warriors who constantly spar over abortion, genocide, annexation of territory, climate change or diacritical marks over names. Since no continuing complaint, other than the length of entries, has ever been lodged against me, and (other than this single unfortunate occurrence which did not involve length of entries) it has been more than a year since I edited a dab page, if/when the topic ban is lifted, it would be extremely simple to determine whether my dab page entries are sufficiently brief to fall in alignment with my reply to Boleyn's question in the 2016 ANI.

9) As for "I warned you some time ago that you were breaching the ban, but you replied that you were allowed to when it came to these types of discussions and I took that at face value without re-reading the ANI.", my reply was actually more nuanced and conciliatory, indicating that if you feel I am incorrect in my assumption that I am allowed to participate in RMs and that the topic ban is total, please feel free to visit the ANI and I will comply with the decision there.

10) In the end, what should be stressed most forcefully is that other than lengthening dab page entries in the past, there have never been any accusations of incivility, edit warring or breach of talk page etiquette [see comment by No such user (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC), above, regarding my participation in RMs]. Thus, there is simply no basis for proposing broad-based bans on taking part in dab page discussion and voting when no evidence has been presented that there had ever been any problem or dissatisfaction within those venues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure from Original Poster

• Comment from OP: Please will someone now close this thread, which I regret opening. I posted here after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Saric (2nd nomination). I had made an edit to the dab page in question to resolve its problems and suggested that we redirect and close the AfD, but Boleyn reverted that edit of mine and pointed out that Roman Spinner - who is topic banned from editing dabs - had deleted two valid entries from this dab while nominating it for 'deletion', making it look like a completely invalid dab. This appeared to be something worth bringing to ANI. Roman has since stated (1:02 pm, 27 April 2017) that the edit in question was accidental (restoring to a previous version without noticing intervening changes), and I AGF. I suggested closing this ANI discussion (3:05 pm, 27 April 2017), pinging the 4 editors who had already commented. Two were happy to close, one didn't reply, and Boleyn has become involved in a lengthy discussion with Roman which, a week on, is sapping the energy of anyone who is following this thread. The consensus seems to be to take no action. I hope that someone uninvolved will now close this thread, so I can take ANI off my watch list and get back to normal editing. (I often check my watchlist on my phone, where every change is listed separately, and ANI occupies all 50 diffs displayed under "Other"). PamD 07:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae and WP:DISRUPT

• Tenebrae (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Lately, Tenebrae has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality when it comes to RuPaul's Drag Race and the corresponding season articles. A consensus was reached that we would use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants (similar to Project_Runway_(season_14) & Big_Brother_18_(U.S.)). Tenebrae refuses to have any of it. Here is a list of his edits saying that he is restoring the status quo while he filibusters everyone to death because he is the only editor who isn't getting his way:

• [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]...ad infinitum.

Then there was a RfC opened which was immediately one-sided. And multiple attempts by users to call for it to be closed since consensus was quickly reached again [101] [102] [103]. Tenebrae then took it upon himself to gaslight and bring up the actions of opposing editors as a red herring [104] [105]. He has also shown that he believes he is better than others due to his time on the wiki and his arbitrarily inflated edit count. [106].

I want Tenebrae blocked for disruptive editing, topic banned from anything Rupaul related, and banned from opening RfCs. This user will show up here and point out what other editors are doing and repeat the same nonsensical verbiage about secondary POV pushing or whatever. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very close to blocking you for your edit summary and behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss Tenebrae's actions. If you want to discuss mine, you should open another topic. However, you are WP:INVOLVED due to my questioning of your administrative actions before, so I highly suggest you recuse yourself from participating. Also, there was no problematic edit summary on that page, so please be more specific in the future. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. And questioning my admin actions does not make me involved. Lastly, gtfo is not acceptable here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to respond to User:Nihlus Kryik. Except for himself and one other editor who have been uncivil and/or have been name-calling at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment, all the other editors have been discussing the WP:VERIFY / WP:PRIMARYSOURCE issue reasonably and collegially. As is not surprising, there is no consensus there after just two days. I'm not sure why he would throw in irrelevant comments about edit-count. I also don't know how to respond to a new editor who has attempted to edit others' talk-page posts and even an admin's post at ANI.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, the editor who I said would only talk about what others are doing is only talking about what others are doing! nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that that comment was uncivil, but it's a favorite initialism of mine. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also note User:Nihlus Kryik is WP:CANVASSING editors he believes disagrees with me to come to this ANI, and is not contacting those who agree with me. See his contributions notifying only Obsidi ‎and Anonymous5454 ‎but not Brocicle or Trooper1005, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

More about what others are doing and no comment about his own actions. Surprising... I notified the users who believe you have been disruptive. It has nothing to do with agreeing with you. Feel free to notify anyone else. I don't care. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to care as your actions are against guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet here you are derailing another topic. As I said, if there are concerns about my edits, feel free to open another topic, but being disruptive here is not going to get anything done. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not how ANI works. The actions of all editors involved in a situation are examined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And in fact, I do need to point out another false comment by Nihlus Kryik, that he "notified the users who believe you have been disruptive" (as if that excuses canvassing). If one does a search for the word "disrupt" at the RfC, Nihlus Kryik is, in fact, the only one who has used it against me. Not only did User:Obsidi never say I was disruptive, he in fact tempered his opposite position to mine with nuanced comments about WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec x3) Please bear in mind, that when you bring an issue to AN/I, your own actions are taken into consideration too. As Neil has stated, your actions, ESPECIALLY refactoring someone's comments on AN, are against our guidelines. WP:BOOMERANG exists for a reason, and you may need to be mindful of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't refactor someone's comments. I nowiki'd a template to prevent the bot from archiving. There is a massive difference and I am tired of being accused of something different. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You modified an admin's decision three times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not modify a decision. I put nowiki brackets around a template to stop the bot from archiving. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? nihlus kryik (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The admin closed the discussion. It should have been archived. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The closed it because Tenebrae showed up and derailed the conversation, like you are doing here. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So you admit you negated the decision because you didn't like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because it made no mention of the closure request and purely focused on the disruptive edits by Tenebrae. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I closed it because it was clear that the ongoing dispute from the article's talk page had spilled over to WP:AN/RFC and was likely to continue there unless halted by a third party. It had all the appearance of a WP:OTHERPARENT thread; of the twenty edits prior to my closure, all edits were to the same thread and were by three people, all of whom were disputants in the RfC proper; and yes, although Tenebrae did make the most edits in the block that I hatted, it was clear to me that Nihlus Kryik was not going to let it lie and the dispute could have continued for much longer. So my closure was a response to the actions of others besides Tenebrae. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

And while you all were worried about me, Tenebrae has continued his battleground editing. nihlus kryik (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had any involvement in this controversy until now. I will only comment that the conduct of User:Nihlus Kryik is one of the most flagrant examples of self-defeating conduct at this noticeboard that I have seen, but apparently User:Nihlus Kryik really doesn't understand that the filing party's conduct really is also scrutinized at this noticeboard, and apparently doesn't understand that insulting of administrators isn't a good idea. (It is true that a few other disruptive editors have deliberately insulted administrators in order to be able to argue that the administrator was involved and thus disqualified. That approach doesn't work, and sometimes results in a site ban. User:Nihlus Kryik - Stop being your own worst enemy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Robert McClenon. Regardless of the merits of the dispute, Nihlus Kryik is ensuring their complaint fails. As already said by others, editors need to expect their behaviour to be scrutinised at ANI when they are complaining about someone else in a dispute which the complainant is also involved in. Telling people to open a new thread because this one is only about the other person's behaviour is nearly always counterproductive. Still a single mistake may be ignored. However if someone keeps on insisting people aren't allowed to comment in their behaviour and goes as far as to show further bad behaviour here at ANI, many people aren't even likely to look into the complaint. The behaviour makes people think there is no merit to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Then you simply aren't doing your jobs if you think it is perfectly okay to ignore a complaint due to the complainer's actions. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI Nil Einne and Robert aren't admins. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem you face, Nihlus Kryik, is that your own statements draw attention to your behavior. You state that consensus was reached to "use the show as a primary source for the progress of the contestants". But the discussion you linked to has "YES, RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES CAN BE USED FOR HIGH/LOW MARKS" as its close. Tenebrae's second RFC then involved primary sources. You declared consensus had been reached after two days and tried to have the discussion closed. Obviously any editor disagreeing with you in the RFC is going to object to you doing this. You labelled them disruptive editors and when another admin declined to close, you refused to accept that and tried to keep the close request open three times. You even went to another admin's page demanding they explain why they reverted your disruptive changes. Finally, you came here, accused Tenebrae of disruptive editing, canvassed, and seemed upset when they defended themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen, both of their behavior (Nihlus Kryik and Tenebrae) have been very poor in this area. Nihlus Kryik's been pushing what the consensus is far more expansively then can reasonably be claimed, and Tenebrae's been fighting every inch even when many editors disagree with him. Both have been having very WP:Battleground kind of mentality. Having both together have made the editing far more contentious then it should have been. I know Nihlus has made some poor decisions, but we should look at all the editors behaviors involved here not just Nihlus. I would suggest both Nihlus and Tenebrae be topic banned from the RuPaul's Drag Race pages. -Obsidi (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Can you provide some diffs to show Tenebrae is editing against consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the question, and I'm gratified to see no such diffs could be provided. I do have to note that Obsidi was the closer of the previous RfC and is now on the opposite side of the issue from me in the current RfC. I'm sure he's operating in good faith, yet his unique position as a closer who's now become partisan may color his judgment. Finally, I might be misinterpreting but I think he and I agree on a basic principle: that unless a primary-source judge specifically says "so-and-so is ranked high" (or synonym) and "so-and-so is ranked low" (or synonym), then any claim of high or low is subjective, POV interpretation. I'm not sure why anyone would ever find it objectionable to give a cite supporting that what they say is true. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I replied below, with the diffs requested of the conduct I was refering to. -Obsidi (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see my response at Obsidi's 18:48, 1 May 2017 post below. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I know this is isn't the place but this really needs to be resovled but do we use reliable secondary sources to source the progress tables of previous seasons? I feel like no one's really given a straight forward answer to the question that started all of this. Brocicle (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See [[107]] @Nihlus Kryik:, I see that you had an old account with multiple blocks. What is the name of your old account? Doug Weller talk 10:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We just finished a RfC in which it was disputed if even secondary sources which directly supported if a contestant was High/Low could be used. And now Tenebrae's started a second RfC in which the question is if edits that are “subjective” can rely upon a primary source. And he has edit wared (although not breaking 3RR), to keep the all edits on High/Low marks out of the article during this second RfC ([108], [109], [110], [111], [112]). Let’s assume that by subjective he means inferences or conclusions and RfC properly resolves that such things cannot be used. That still doesn’t answer the question as to if any of the edits removed are actually “subjective” and as such he is removing edits which are not going to be resolved by the RfC on the basis of the RfC’s existence. And so even once the RfC resolves (which he is insisting on waiting the full 30 days) there are going to be further disputes on the subjectivitiness of the edits he is currently removing. That’s at least one more 30 day RfC just waiting to happen. And so we got to ask, at what point will the vast majority of editors actually be able to change the text as they think is appropriate? To me it just seems to be repeated stonewalling not based on any explicit reason as to why any given episode is subjective, but a blanket statement that isn’t true for all cases, for the purpose of not having High/Low marks in the article. And instead is going to wait 30 days for one RfC, then 30 days for another, and then 30 days for another, etc… It isn’t good behavior, imo, but it wasn’t bad enough for me to have personally brought him to ANI yet (and I’m not going to talk about behavior of editors outside of that context).-Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on editorial deadline today and probably shouldn't be taking time to respond, yet I must reply to false claims and unfounded accusations by Obsidi, who accuses me of edit-warring despite, among other things, my not making multiple edits.

The diffs he offers above are in full compliance with WP:RfC protocol, which states that once an RfC begins, we don't make contentious edits to the staus-quo sections under discussion until the RfC is resolved and a consensus is reached. The edit-summaries plainly state, "Issue is under discussion at an RfC" and "Restoring status quo now that RfC has begun....." Indeed, another editor here makes the very same edit restoring status quo, and I don't see Obsidi making any claims against that editor.

I have been assuming good faith all this time, and now have to state my concern that Obsidi, the non-admin closer of an RfC, has gone on to take a partisan position on the related RfC. This gives the appearance that his first close was not objective and disinterested. Perhaps his initial close should be reviewed, since a) his making unfounded accusations here shows questionable judgment and a misunderstanding of WP:RfC, and b) allowing subjective, POV interpretations of primary-source content flies in the face of longstanding Wikipedia policy, as does c) resisting quote-and-timestamp citing of the vague statements being interpreted. If the interpretations are valid, then no one should be reluctant to cite the statement.

As for User:Nihlus Kryik — an extremely new, apparent SPA editor who is making wild accusations and showing highly intemperate behavior not only with me but with multiple admins — I would have to say his judgment speaks for itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I cited 5 edits of you reverting (all of these were to the single season page, among the dozen of reverts split among the multiple season pages). But your RfC is so broad, its practically a policy question (I’m not even sure it is relevant on that page), allowing you to revert huge areas of the article for 30 days. Everyone should be able to agree that a primary source cannot be used for subjective (or as I would refer to them as interpretations and conclusions) statements. But the RfC doesn’t decide if any specific statement is subjective, and yet you would claim under the authority of the RfC to revert whatever edits you personally think are subjective for 30 days even when the RfC won’t even resolve that question? That’s very disruptive, see WP:STONEWALL and WP:STONEWALLING.

As to the quotes/timestamps, there are millions of cites without quotes on Wikipedia, and many don’t even have a timestamp yet alone a quote. If the accuracy of a citation is challenged to a source like this we usually require a timestamp (mostly for easy of verification like page numbers), but we have never required a quote (sometimes one isn’t even possible when summarizing large sections). Nor have I seen ANY policy that requires quotes on all these citations. If you would like to change that policy to require quotes, fine, but this page really isn’t the place to change policy.

If you would like to challenge my close feel free (although I would ask you open another section to dispute it as this section is about potential behavioral problems). I think my close accurately reflected the discussion and the relevant policy considerations. But I would note that the closure requirements ask if “the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area.” Involvement AFTER the close is not relevant, I am clearly involved in this second RfC and it would be improper of me to close this one. -Obsidi (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to point out that only two editors who are opposed to my position, including one highly intemperate editor, are claiming I have been disruptive. No one other than you two are saying so. And you were brought here via that other editor's inappropriate canvassing. No one else appears to have an issue. You also bring up smokescreening claims here that have nothing to do with what the RfC discussion is about, let alone this discussion. The RfC is not about policy. It is about the fact that judges on RuPaul's Drag Race don't tell contestants "you're ranked high this week" or "you're ranekd low." Therefore, you and Nihlus Kryik appear to want to be free to add subjective, POV interpretations of whatever statements are allegedly being made by the primary source. That violates WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Simple as that. And it's telling that you're so opposed to telling other editors exactly what statements you're interpreting.

I'm not a fan of non-admins closing RfCs, precisely for what I'm seeing here: By taking a partisan position on the related RfC, you raise reasonable suspicions that your close was not objective and disinterested, since you obviously have partisan feelings. So perhaps a review is in order. But one thing at a time. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your right that so far no one other than me and Nihlus Kryik has commented, Yea or Nea, on if you were being disruptive (I assume they are waiting to see what the arguments from both sides look like before they weigh in). If it stays just the two of us, you will be fine. You are also right that I was canvased in (I am at these boards often and would have commented anyway, but I was canvassed as much as I didn't want to be and can't change that now), so the closer and other editors are free to take into account that I was canvassed into this discussion. If you would like, I can notify everyone that has been active on that page, which should reduce the problems caused by the inappropriate canvassing.

If the RfC question was "Does the show RuPaul's Drag Race ever explicitly identify someone as ranked high or low, or is any such determination an interpretation or conclusion?" then I would agree with you (and the answer would refer to specific instances in which some judges say x or y, or some other reason to believe someone was ranked high/low based on the show). But the question of the RfC doesn't even mention the show at all, it is a pure question of policy applicable to many pages: Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said? Not one word of that is about the content of the show. -Obsidi (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a reasoned and collegial reply. I think the fact that the RfC is specifically at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and not at Wikipedia talk:No original research or a similar page signals that the RfC is about RuPaul's Drag Race. I don't believe anyone at the RfC discussion seems unaware of this or believes otherwise, judging by their comments.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warn Tenebrae I'm going to change my mind a bit. While I had previously recommended topic banning Tenebrae, I'm changing my recommendation to a warning. As much as I think the behavior is very WP:STONEWALLish, I'm not sure he was properly warned and allowed a chance to correct his behavior. Nihlus kryik tried to tell him, but didn't do so in a very good way based on policy, and so I could understand Tenebrae not understanding the problem. And even so, most of the problems I have seen are prior to even Nihlus kryik, in his flawed way, trying to tell Tenebrae. Once warned he should be given a chance not to do bad things prior to getting topic banned. While being warned isn't a requirement, it is usually expected prior to something as serious as a topic ban unless it is very clearly wrong behavior. -Obsidi (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but following RfC protocol and restoring status quo for topics under RfC discussion is absolutely proper. In fact, least two other editors at the various RuPaul's Drag Race articles have done the exact same as I, and you're not calling them disruptive. So while I had wanted to show good faith, it's clear by your unfounded claims and accusations that your concern is solely that I disagree with you at the RfC. The fact that only you and one highly intemperate editor who sides with you are making disruption allegations is extraordinarily telling. And since no one else besides you is commenting against me at this point, your barrage of attacks is taking on the appearance of a vendetta. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow you accuse me of a vendetta for a post in which I reduce my recommendation? That's a new one. And it isn't a "barrage of attacks," I made my recommendation and was asked to explain myself, which I tried to do, and then reduced my initial recommendation. I also dispute that any and all edits you claim are subjective for the next month are under the RfC, as the RfC question will not decide on if any edit is or is not subjective. -Obsidi (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Pointing out that consensus is being misused and opposing editors gas-lighting by willfully ignoring consensus, even denying it exists (essentially lying), is not battleground behavior. It's rare, but sometimes everyone else is wrong and sometimes there is a cabal.--v/r - TP 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if he is pointing out that he doesn't believe there is a consensus if that is a good faith belief. I wouldn't refer to what the other editor was doing as explicitly lying or gaslighting, merely disagreeemnt as to the consensus. No my problems are diffrent than just that. -Obsidi (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that a consensus exists about primary sources when the consensus is about secondary sources is straight up lying. Disruptively hounding an editor that they are wrong when, in very plain text, they are correct is gaslighting. My description is accurate.--v/r - TP 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was about secondary sources (not primary sources), that doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus in favor of using primary sources as well (although it had yet to have been established conclusivily by an RfC close so I'm assuming he was refering to a local consensus). -Obsidi (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that when I came to the discussion about "High"s and "Low"s originally to give a third opinion, I had no previous connection to the issue at hand. I believe that the issue at hand is misunderstood by many parties and there was a lot of "I like it" voting going on which in my opinion falsely indicated consensus. I took the time to research the matter and to be fair, it's major muddy water territory. Judge ratings being different to table entries, secondary sources that only back up one episode for the table entries and it's strictly up to viewer interpretation to extrapolate the final result for these tables from the primary source for all of the episodes involved. So you can see why people are getting frustrated at each other and ending up accusing each other of misconduct. The editor who closed the original decision didn't look at the core issues at great enough detail so any apparent consensus was tilted heavily towards the "I like it" votes that saturated the discussion. I don't think that any editor (including Nihlus Kryik) taking part in that discussion should have action taken against them but the issue that this complaint stems from (about Highs and Lows) needs a decisive answer from an uninvolved editor and I'm too involved with the issue to do that now. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I would be interested to know why Nihlus was so concerned about the block of user F0rmation122. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Originally I assumed it was because he lost some sort of "ally". That set of articles has editors with odd editing histories and I included Nihlus in with them. [113] Doug Weller's comment above makes the situation have a lot more sense now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspected a possible sock, but it's all for the better if I'm mistaken. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I stated I didn't think it was a "new" editor, hence either a sock of someone or avoiding scrutiny. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Or a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART, merely not being a "new" editor doesn't mean something neferious neccessarily. -Obsidi (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start" Not exactly a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race isn't usually what I would consider a "articles and topics [that] are particularly contentious" at least usually. Now yes, there is RfCs that started after he started editing on this page, but RfC's happen on all kinds of pages. There is no community sanction or arbitration case involving these pages. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was started before their last batch of seven reverts. So we have an editor, making trivial edits to get auto-confirmed, edit warring on content under discussion in an active RFC. Far from a perfectly proper WP:CLEANSTART. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• So we have an editor on an effective WP:CLEANSTART, with multiple blocks on their previous account (per Doug Weller above), whose editing under their new account includes disruption, edit-warring and incivility, and who comes to ANI demanding another edit be blocked. Have I summed this up succinctly? Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

He is clearly on a WP:CLEANSTART, but there is nothing inproper in that. We don't know, yet, if the previous blocks are related to this sitaution, nor any evidence that it was a clean start to evade WP:SCRUTINY. I have no problem with Doug Weller asking for the prior name to make sure the blocks are unrelated to the current situation (or at least a reason for the clean start so we can know if we should confirm that more confidentially). But so far, we should act based on his current behavior (which do seem bad enough for some kind of sanction). -Obsidi (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Their previous account did not have to be editing in the same or related areas to make their history relevant. We're looking at their behavior. Edit warring, disruption, canvassing, and landing at ANI all within their first ~100 edits. This would probably result in a block if there was past similar history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say he had to be editing "in the same or related areas to make their history relevant" merely that we don't yet know if his history is relevant. The blocks may be on entirely unrelated issues, we just don't know yet. -Obsidi (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: I'm a volunteer here, as with nearly everyone else. I don't have a job. Even if I were an admin, I still wouldn't have a job. Heck even if I did have a job here, it's entirely resonably my employer might feel because there are insufficient people-hours I should prioritise on complaints or problems where it looks like there is something worth dealing with and not waste my time on complaints where the complainers own actions very strongly suggest there's nothing to look at, except maybe whether the complainer merits a block. If you think people always need to take every single complaint you make seriously, not matter how flawed it is, you've got another thing coming. Especially when the people dealing with the complaint are volunteers and you have absolutely zero service commitment or undertaking from the service you're complaining about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• OP has not used WP in 3 days. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• No action should be taken against any editor in this dispute. My suggestion would be to address the core issue of "High"s and "Low"s at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race and have it examined in greater detail by an experienced editor who isn't involved. As I stated in my previous comment, the muddy water nature of the issue has caused significant misunderstanding between editors which in turn has caused this conduct dispute.

I don't think it was helpful of Tenebrae to divert the attention of the issue away from "High"s and "Low"s when he started the RfC on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. Direct interpretation of episodes as a primary source has always been done for plot summaries of TV series. However the original issue of "High"s and "Low"s was more difficult to pin down an answer for. The tables for each episode currently state that contestants who didn't win and weren't middle of the table to be "High" or "Low". The issue from what I understand it (I'm not a fan of the show) to be is, the judges don't state anyone to be "High" or "Low" and there's only one secondary source that does indicate this and that's for just one episode. What I would suggest is that this issue is solved by adherence to policy (WP:OR in this case). I know that some editors, Anonymous5454, for example disagree with this but if careful consideration was taken to traverse the answers to this: flowchart at the start of the section on Talk: RuPaul's Drag Race then it seems inevitable that "High"s and "Low"s are inappropriate for inclusion in the articles because a secondary source would need to be acquired for each and every episode, therefore becoming an impracticality.

I don't think it was helpful of Obsidi to close the original discussion of it without full knowledge of the above mentioned issue. They did state that it wasn't a vote but the end result was in practical terms, a vote because it was clear that the issue of "High" and "Low" table entries was not scrutinised in enough depth by the closer. My weak oppose in the original discussion was based on wanting "High"s and "Low"s but accepting the inevitability that secondary sources would not be practical to attain for each and every episode to source them.

It was especially unhelpful of nihlus kryik to make this a conduct dispute though not to the extent of endorsement for any action being taken against them for making it one. The content dispute first and foremost should be solved and then everyone should go separate ways after a decisive answer is given to this issue. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I did understand what you are saying above, and you may well be right as to the High/Low marks. Maybe the judges are clear enough, maybe the are not (I've not actually formed an opinion on that yet), although my guess is that they are clear enough in some episodes but not clear in others. But my close in the first RfC dealt with the questions actually asked in the first RfC, which was not about using the show as a primary source to determine if the judges were clear enough (instead it asked about using the secondary sources you mentioned). -Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Older Login Password Not Recognized, New Password and Acct create blocked - Name/Address in use?

I created an account and last posted on Wikipedia over 8 years ago and now have logon problems with my Wikipedia account that apparently still exists, but was deactivated... I am contacting the Admins to 1.) be sure my personal info is not duplicated by my creating 2 Wikipedia accounts that share the same contact info with 2 different email accounts and 2.) ultimately re-enable my Wikipedia edit access to allow me to suggest a few changes to the content of several Wikipedia webpages.

A problem reoccurs when I recently tried to logon to Wikipedia with the same User Name/Password from the distant past, however my correct logon info as I remember was not recognized. I attempted to revise the Password, but the User Name/Email Address was not recognized. I then tried to create a new Login Name/Password and a Display screen popped up and said my User Name and/or email address was already in use. It seems that Wikipedia will not allow to me to see or revise my original login password. New password reset attempts are not recognized because "The Account is already in use"My past logon account is in good standing with Wikipedia and may have been deactivated due to infrequent Logons.

With my older Wikipedia account still available, do I have to request that older Logon account to be recreated or resurrected by a Wikipedia Admin? Otherwise, should I create a new Account/Password and link it to another email address other than the original that I want to use? I can send the Admins more detailed account info, but I am unsure if this email is considered public or private since it goes to the Admins in a public forum...

Regards, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.64.108 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'd say the first thing you need to do is tell us the names of these accounts, as without that it would be very hard to help. But not your email address - you should keep that private. In general, accounts are not deactivated through disuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try "[your old user name]~enwiki" as the user name? 8 years ago should be before global accounts. The account's name may also have been usurped by another user. In any case, telling us the account name is the best course of action. ansh666 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are getting the message that your email address is in use, and you still have access to that email address, then you should be able to request a password reset. If you can login but your account is blocked, you will need to log in to the account and then request an unblock from the account's talk page. If you don't have access to that email, then unfortunately there's nothing we can do and you'll have to create a new account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing behavior of Robert Walker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Robertinventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The editing behavior of Robertinventor, aka Robert Walker, is disruptive:

[1] Robert Walker changes his own old post materially, after someone has replied, a violation of WP:TALK guidelines. For evidence: this on RSN. This was after I reminded him to not do so. This is not a new issue with RW, but one raised in past such as in an ANI review of Robert Walker's disruptive behavior, a review that ultimately concluded with a topic ban on RW. Admin Bishonen had observed and cautioned Robert Walker to read WP:REDACT, on May 7 2016, advising, "It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered." Robert Walker's editing, after the ban expired, has ignored this.

[2] Robert Walker has repeatedly cast aspersions on Joshua Jonathan and I, without providing evidence and editing diffs. For example, with this, he falsely alleged, "You and Joshua Jonathan often revert edits on the basis that they are only cited to Buddhist scholars". No evidence provided. See the WP:DRN, Talk:Four Noble Truths, and Talk:WikiProject Buddhism for more examples.

[3] The walls of post by Robert Walker (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), (Replaced with: recent evidence in Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT section below) with the above two behavioral issues make the situation worse. FWIW, I was recently requested by admin RegentsPark to help in the dispute between Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker, but RW's behavior is too disruptive to allow progress.

Seeking an appropriate administrative action on RW's editing privileges or warning to User:Robertinventor, User:Robert Walker and linked disclosed accounts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've already said, I'm sorry for suggesting that you do edit reverts of posts of that type. @Joshua Jonathan: does [114] and conversation about it here: [[115] but you don't. It was a one off mistake in a passage where I was talking about how you and @Joshua Jonathan: both have a similar view on WP:RS and I inadvertently types that you do edit reverts. I have never said that about you before and it was a mistake[116]. As for the rest, I do sometimes say too much, but it's not intentionally disruptive and it is too late to remove that post from the RSN. If only you and @Joshua Jonathan: would give me a friendly warning first, and there is no need to take me to WP:ANI just because I've been verbose again. I've never had any warnings of that nature from either of you. I am doing my best. I take wikibreaks as soon as I spot I'm being over verbose. My "walls of text" are not meant as fillibustering either, they are all carefully worded and thought out and the intent is to help not to disrupt processes here. I also said sorry about editing the RSN post after there were replies and said how it happened [117]. Robert Walker (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true. This is not the first time. You do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You apologized earlier too, but didn't change your ways. You promise to reply to my request for evidence, but you don't. You do so even after my repeated requests. Not just I, others such as RegentsPark has asked you to give specifics and evidence last week.

You re-instated your "change of older version of your post" twice (1, 2) twenty minutes "after" I requested to stop changing your previous edits. As admin Bishonen warned you in 2016, you have done this before, and you apologized then too. Yet you keep doing it, any way. You seem to have no respect for the integrity of a discussion, or how your back-editing leaves a misleading impression to the replies of other people, on others who join the discussion later. Your back-changing your posts, after someone has already replied, robs the context of their replies and make the other editors look unreasonable. You are very disruptive. You walls of post, rapid pace of endless editing the same talk pages 100s of times within a week is not helpful to collaboration. I suggest a 1 year ban, or at least a last warning to you, for the following: [1] no back editing "anything" in your non-threaded section, or in any threaded discussion, after someone has replied; [2] you provide edit diff or evidence in reliable sources, for any allegation you make. Any future failure should be grounds for sanctions. I am open to any alternate measures admins suggest based on their experience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: You apologized above at 19:29, 30 April 2017. Yet, at 19:42, 30 April 2017 you do it again, with the allegation, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." No diffs, no evidence. The casting aspersions without evidence by Robert Walker seems to never end. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I only saw your message on my talk page AFTER I did those additional edits of the RSN post. I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive. With the Four Noble Truths talk page, most of my edits are minor edits, and they were of comments that nobody had replied to. Nobody has warned me that I shouldn't do minor edits after I have posted a post there and before they are replied to. They are usually copy editing for clarity and don't change the essential meaning of what I say. I no longer edit my posts after they are replied to in threaded discourse, or I mark such edits with underlines and strikethroughs as recommended. This is the first warning I've had about editing a post when there is a threaded discourse going on in a separate section. I do understand the reason, and I won't do it again when the sections are related as these were. And - you did collapse my first post there for several months a short while back[118]. And @Joshua Jonathan: did delete that post too[119]. Those are WP:TPOs. Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet. Robert Walker (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true. You allege above, again without evidence, that "I had no idea that editing a user page in my own user space would be seen as disruptive." If you had provided an "edit diff", admins would see that it was not your user space, it was "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" where you back-edited. WP:RSN is not your user space. If after your zillion edits, past admin warnings and reminders for "no back editing", past admin sanctions and blocks, you still are back editing on notice boards and dispute forums, there is a pattern of serious behavioral issues with your editing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I put a lot of thought and care into my posts here. The numerous minor edits are part of that. It is not meant disruptively. The only reason I do this is to make the posts easier to read, to shorten them (as I tend to be verbose) and copy edit them. And in that RSN discussion you said that my post was inappropriate for the RSN. I answered explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there. I had no idea at the time that to do so would be seen as disruptive. As soon as you pointed it out I realized what you meant - I should have just done a strikeout of the entire paragraph and added a replacement paragraph. But of course it was too late after I saw your message on my talk page, which I only saw AFTER I finished the copy editing to make it clearer why I posted there. The conversation is here [120]. Robert Walker (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Robert's statement "Neither of you have apologized for doing that yet": I did apologize. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#Request for renewed topic-ban: "Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. Thanks for the apology! Robert Walker (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert Walker: Not true again. You back-changed your edits at least thrice, just today. Here is your first back-change. After you did this, I reverted you with the edit summary "please do not change your old posts/talk page comments after someone has replied". Here is your second second back-change which reverted my revert. Then you went ahead one more time, ignored my explicit request on your talk page not to keep back-editing. You thereafter did the third back-change, not seconds after, but a while later. Please note that the change was not about "explaining why it was appropriate and said I'd edit my post to make it clear why I had posted there". You changed your post materially, with back-edits where you change your allegations against Joshua Jonathan or I, as amply evidenced in that diff.

So, we are not talking about simple explanation added, or indent, for format change, or spelling/grammar fix, or simple stuff that doesn't change the meaning of your post. You change the context and your allegations after someone has already replied. The problem is that this is not a new behavioral issue. You have done it in past when Bishonen warned you. Yet you keep doing it again. The walls of text, and "allegations without evidence" issue is worse disruption by you. You apologized above, yet did it again a while later, as evidenced by the links above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Oh I see, that was you? I do remember during that editing that I pressed submit, but when I went to edit the page again, it still showed the old version. I did not think of the possibility that someone else had edited my comment - which of course I now understand you did because you had a right to do so. I assumed that something had gone wrong at my end. That's why I didn't think to check the editing history and just did the edit again. In that case, yes of course, it was of course a material change but I didn't at the time realize the rule applied, in the midst of that conversation. I did say at the end of my rewrite "(edited after discussion with @Ms Sarah Welch: below.)"

Now I do understand, that if an editor challenges a post you make to a board, saying they don't know why you posted, or any similar situation, yes of course you have to keep the original challenged post on the board and strike it out and then add the new amended post beneath with underlines to show it is new content, so that their comment challenging your post has content. I can go and edit it and insert the old material with strike through and underline the new material if that was acceptable. But at this stage that might of itself count as back editing because other editors have now responded to the edited post. So I don't think there is much I can do except to say sorry as I did and that I'll take care not to do it again. I did add at the end (as edited )Robert Walker (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ms Sarah Welch, your items in #3 are mostly months to years old (some are 4 years old), so please strike the entirety of 3#. That done, what we apparently have left is RW's re-factoring of his posts. I suggest a prohibition on refactoring talkpage posts. Robertinventor, prepare your posts in your sandbox first, and perfect them as to what you really and clearly and succinctly want to say. Then post them on article talk and do not alter them after posting. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed that links in #3 are old, but that does not mean RW's wall of texts is not a continuing issue. It is a long standing issue, that editors uninvolved in Buddhism article space have recently expressed their concerns / frustration on. Would you be okay if I struck the old links and replaced them with links from recent weeks from WP:DRN, WP:RSN etc? I also request admin review of #2, because casting aspersions without evidence by RW is a persistent problem? I have given recent links above, and can provide more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• There are no aspersions in your #2 listing, only a neutral and neutrally worded observation (whether it is mistaken or not is not relevant). In terms of walls of text, I suggest that any examples should be after April 15, 2017, which is when the last ANI report ended: [121]. Also, for any example for any problem, you need to provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits, not yours. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: Strange. Why April 15? I appreciate your comments that you make as another volunteer and non-admin, and we all need to respect wikipedia's guidelines. Is there an Arb committee or other resolution that somehow statutorily exempts RW's behavior because he was a part of some other ANI case?

On #2, FWIW, here are the Arb Committee resolutions on casting aspersions (trimmed for brevity, full version here):

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC): It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause.

Passed 7 to 0, 22:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC): An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

For #2, I have already provided multiple evidentiary links above of repeated accusations by RW without evidence, against me, where these apply. FWIW, RW has accepted that he has accused me without evidence, then at 15:07, 30 April 2017 he retracted his accusation where he admitted, "As far as I know, you don't". But, hours later, at 19:42, 30 April 2017, RW accused again without evidence, "Especially since Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch often explain to other editors including myself that they are not secondary sources." RW's accusations that I commonly revert proper content, delete reliable secondary sources, etc is an accusation of misbehavior. Such accusations are a repetitive RW behavior. I urge that these past Arb committee's resolutions on casting aspersions be considered in this case as they are relevant. They are common sense, humane principles, necessary for any healthy working/volunteer environment, in my humble view. To be clear, I am not asking for indef ban on RW for this, but a prohibition, or other limited sanction on his editing privileges as a corrective measure.

I agree with you, Softlavender, that for #3 problem, I need to "provide diffs, not pages, and the diffs need to be of his edits", not mine from recent weeks. I will do so, and update #3 today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have only once said that you revert edits, which was a mistake, @Joshua Jonathan: does, but you don't. However I did provide a diff for your statements about secondary behaviour; possibly I might have saved it first before adding this. [122]

@Softlavender: - do you say then that it is an issue that I edit my posts after I posted them, when nobody has replied to them yet? Until @Ms Sarah Welch: said about it in this action, nobody has said that this is a problem as far as I remember. My verbosity, yes, and I used to edit posts after they were replied to, until I was told that you can't do that unless you use strikeout and underline. Since then I have been careful to use strikeout and underline. I can compose my posts in my sandbox, yes.

In those edits I'm going by this section of WP:REDACT.

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely."

It might be that I haven't understood it properly, or that my interpretation of "a short while" is different from that of other editors. Robert Walker (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RW, there is no way you can "re-revert" my revert of your back-editing accidentally, then preserve it, and add more back-editing for the third time quite a while later (see above for diffs). Complete prohibition on your refactoring/back-editing is the minimum we must do here to address #1. The issue #2 isn't that you alleged something once. The issue is that you repeatedly "accuse without evidence". You apologized. I was willing to forgive you, thinking of dropping the stick and moving on. Yet, you again "accused without evidence" many hours later. This behavior of yours has not stopped, and this is disruptive (see above for diffs). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I assure you I had no idea. I composed that text first in a text editor on my computer and copy / pasted it in, used the preview button and then edited it, clicked submit and did more editing. But then I found that it didn't seem to have "stuck" - it still showed the old version. I didn't know why that happened, but I just copy / pasted my version on my computer back in again and clicked submit again. This time it worked. I did not realize that the reason it didn't work the first time was because you had reverted it.

@Softlavender: I've just started using my sandbox for my talk page posts, composed a long comment to @Joshua Jonathan: there first. I think this may be a breakthrough for me. It's amazing that I've been editing here so long and not really properly appreciated the use of the sandbox, you will see from its editing history that I last used it in 2013 and I don't think I have ever used it to draft comments before. [123]. Perhaps someone suggested this to me before but if so I forgot. I did try creating comments in subpages of my user space but that got clumsy plus there's the matter of pings, you don't want to ping someone to a subpage of your user space. I assume that pings don't work from the sandbox? Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker: The use the sandbox idea, including for drafting, has been suggested to you several times. For example, even during the last AN 2016 case review on you, which led to a six month ban for you a year ago. Back then, you seemed to acknowledge and accept the "draft in sandbox" idea. Yet here we are. Nothing really changed, and the walls of texts and other behavioral issues are back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please check my sandbox history. You will see I never used it between 2013 and the present. I have started to use it now and it makes a big difference. I think it will mean an end to this re-editing of posts as my problem always was that I find it awkward to edit my posts in the preview screen and there's the issue of possibly losing data. I may have missed something but I don't remember anyone suggesting this before @Softlavender: and surely I would at least have tested the idea in my sandbox at least once if they had and I'd understood what they were saying. Robert Walker (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker: I gave you the link above from May 2016, a year ago, which explicitly mentions the "sandboxes" suggestion. Read the whole AN case thread through the close by admin EdJohnston. We went over this, with a lot of effort and numerous members of wikipedia community who tried to help you and offer your constructive suggestions. If you didn't read it, or if you ignored it all then, it is not the community's fault. Because you were a focus of the May 2016 AN review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert, to answer your question, yes, you in particular should refrain from editing your posts once you post them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Okay that's clear. Sorry only just saw this post. I pinged you in another post not sure if you saw it. But I now use the sandbox unless a post is very short like this one. This will completely remove the need for refactoring my posts after I post them. I don't know how it is that I can have not realized this way of using the sandbox until you suggested it and that basically was the problem that I was using talk pages as my sandbox. Maybe I thought it was just for trying out wikipedia or doing early stage drafts of article content? I hadn't used it since 2013. Robert Walker (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker and the WP:WALLOFTEXT

The walls of text by Robert Walker issue continues, which combined with #1 and #2 issues above have been disruptive. This issue needs to be considered in light of the relevant past, so measures if any proposed and considered, weigh whether and to what extent past measures on Robert Walker's walls of text have helped. The disruption by RW's walls of text was noted for example, during a 2016 AN review process by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ([124]), JimRenge ([125]), Robert McClenon [126], others there, and by the case closing admin EdJohnston ([127]).

Evidence of walls of text from recent weeks include:

• Reliable sources/Noticeboard: 1, 2, others; Number of posts by Robert Walker since 07:33, April 30 2017: 80

• Dispute resolution noticeboard: 3, others, 4, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 08:27, 26 April 2017: dozens, not counted

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism: 5, 6, others, Number of posts by Robert Walker since 22:29, 10 April 2017: 73

Recent comments by other wikipedia editors:

1. RSN volunteer comment: "If neutral sources also discuss the general views of Theravadan Bhikkus, then of course those academic views should be included. The massive walls of text here discouraged me from adding to the discussion earlier. Thus, please note that I'm only adding one view to this very particular usage, and have no time to enter into the meandering philosophical meta discussion above and in the countless linked discussions. First Light (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)"

1. DRN volunteer comment: "As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)"

The above evidence is being submitted per the request of Softlavendar in the section above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

More Comments, Not Again!

Not again! As the original posters have noted, this has been going on for a year. The subject editor, Robert Walker, has some issue about the articles on Buddhism. I don't entirely understand what the issue is, both because it appears to be something specific to Buddhism that isn't relevant to non-Buddhists, and because the great length and number of the posts are a barrier to understanding. I think that RW is unhappy that the articles were substantially reworked by User:Joshua Jonathan (JJ) and User:Ms Sarah Welch (SW) in 2014, but I am not sure. In any case, the issue of the length and number of his posts has been brought up here in the past, and it appears that it resulted in restrictions being imposed, but they have expired. In any case, an attempt was made to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was closed; my own thought there was that RW didn't identify a specific content issue, and DRN is for the discussion of article content issues (not meta-issues or conduct). The issue was then taken to the reliable source noticeboard, which is now being swamped by walls of text, but the issue doesn't seem to have to do with specific sources but a general philosophical complaint about the difference between Western academic sources and traditional Asian sources. It appears that all efforts to get RW to state a concise issue are unsuccessful, and, besides, he apparently can't just post a statement (whether or not a wall of text) without editing it while others (JJ and SW) are responding. I don't see any likelihood of a collaborative solution for an editor who can't take part in collaboration. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - for clarity, I did not take it to the DRN. I said on my talk page that I am sure a DRN won't work, having identified what I believe to be the issue, that we have different SUBPOVs here, it's towards the end of this comment [128]. Soon after that, @Joshua Jonathan: took the case to DRN. I never wanted it at DRN, but once there of course I made the best case I could there. Robert Walker (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't important whether RW or JJ took it to DRN. It is important that the length of RW's posts made it impossible for the DRN volunteers to facilitate moderated discussion or to identify what the issues were. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue of me continually editing my posts should now be solved with @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use my sandbox. I haven't re-edited any post since then after posting, only two posts of any length since then. Please let me use this for a while so you can see that it works, as I am sure it will. Robert Walker (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That is only one part of the problem, and has apparently been proposed and accepted and forgotten in the past. However, the refactoring of talk page posts is only one part of the problem, because the length of the posts is also a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's true. However my editing often reduces the length of posts. I often start with a post that is too verbose, and if I don't get any replies to it, then I am able to trim it down a lot by removing repetition. You should see shorter posts as a result. Also note that @Joshua Jonathan: also often does extremely long posts, he is as verbose as me, or not far off - if I had the opportunity to trim my verbose posts as I will be able to do now, you probably won't see any difference. And my posts throughout are written with great care and thought to present the point as clearly as I can and are never intended to be disruptive. Robert Walker (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone finds that I am saying too much - why not just go to my talk page and say "Look you have said a bit too much in that conversation, why not take a wikibreak for a day or two?" That is what I do when I spot that I've been too verbose myself. Why take me to ANI just to tell me that I've been too verbose again, and try to get me topic banned for it?

User:Robertinventor - The problem is, first, telling you that your posts are too long simply results in a reply, which is more words, and, second, telling you to take a break is a little late after your overly lengthy post has made concise discussion impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To reply to your earlier comment, the essential point is that these articles do not present the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. Just as Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus - sutra tradition Buddhists believe that Buddha became enlightened as a young man aged 30 and at that point he was already free of the unsatisfactoriness of suffering, old age, sickness and death, even though he went on to become old, sick and die. I have given plenty of cites to WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism, but these are not accepted as proving the case because they are written by Buddhists! This is one of many issues with these articles but one of the most striking, It's like coming across an article about Christianity that doesn't explain that Christians believe in resurrection. It's a simple point. @Joshua Jonathan: and @Ms Sarah Welch: complicate the discussion every time I mention this by saying that Buddha said it was his last rebirth, which is true. But that is not what enlightenment means to Buddhists, it means this cessation of dukkha which in the case of Buddha he realized as a young man. So the main issue can be stated concisely. There are many other issues of a similar nature in the articles. So, the problem I have is not so much stating the issues, as in convincing editors here who are unfamiliar with sutra tradition Buddhists that this is what Buddhist believe. It is tough to do this against all the claims of the opposing editors that we do not have this belief. As for the reliable sources, my "Four Noble Truths" colour coded by the sources shows how the new version relies almost entirely on western sources such as Anderson for nearly every sentence in the lede. This is why it is essential to establish that it is okay to use the traditional Buddhist sources to describe the beliefs of sutra tradition Buddhists. @Dorje108: agrees that they are POV and he is the only other sutra tradition Buddhist to comment on the dispute. See [129]. As for my decision to take it to the RSN, that was the recommendation of @Winged Blades of Godric:. He made this recommendation as one of two possibilities when I closed the dispute. [130]. I have never taken a case to the RSN before and was unfamiliar with how it works and I didn't use their recommended format of Article, Content and Source as three bullet points and wrote too much. If I'd known how it worked, I'd have written my post like that right away, and it could have saved a lot of unnecessary meta discussion. Incidentally I composed this reply in my sandbox as you can check easily. So far I have saved 11 minor edits on the talk pages by using the sandbox. This is going to make a huge difference to those issues. Robert Walker (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon: I concur with rest of your observations, except one detail. I should set the record straight on that, to avoid giving an impression that Joshua Jonathan and I have been "team editing" the affected articles since 2014. The credit for the improvements to Four Noble Truths etc articles in 2014 and 2015 do not belong to me, it belongs to others including Joshua Jonathan. My first edit to Four Noble Truths article was on 29 April 2016, after being invited to review the article earlier about a year ago because of a dispute which included RW and JJ. In other words, JJ and I haven't been working together on the disputed articles since 2014. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - when has telling me that my posts are too long lead to more replies? Except here of course, where you say that I will be topic banned from the Buddhism topic area for six months in which case of course I need to reply. But has anyone ever said this on my talk page? Or suggested I take a wikibreak because I'm being too verbose? I don't know of any examples. Whenever they think I am being too verbose, they take me straight to WP:ANI and the first I hear of it is a post on my talk page saying I have an action against me here. Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific Unpleasant Remedy, Topic-Ban

Since all efforts both by JJ and SW and by uninvolved administrators and editors to get the issue defined concisely have failed, I find it necessary to propose that Robert Walker be topic-banned from all posts about Buddhism, broadly defined, for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've been looking over the discussion both here as well as on WP:RSN and agree that this is the only way forward. Robert Walker needs to learn the difference between primary sources and secondary sources, the importance of an orderly discussion, the importance of focused suggestions, as well as the disruptive nature of walls of text that are being constantly edited and re-edited. At the same time, I feel that they are acting in good faith. Perhaps a topic area in which they are not so deeply invested will help them learn the way of the wiki. I'd prefer to see some evidence outside Buddhism that they can edit meaningfully before a topic ban is lifted so would also support an indef topic ban with the possibility of applying for its removal after six months. --regentspark (comment) 21:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: You don't need proof that I can edit meaningfully here as I edit in many areas. I wrote about half of the article Planetary protection - and ditto for Interplanetary contamination. I wrote Present day Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth recently. Also Modern Mars habitability recently. Both of those are almost entirely my work. So is the Hexany article. I have many contributions here also in the articles on microtonal music and I do many minor edits throughout wikipedia adding content. This dispute has rather distracted me away from that activity, which is what I normally do here. This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia, such as @Dorje108:'s original article on Karma in Buddhism, which had been in a mature state for a long time. I wanted to do something about this as a reader who admired his work on those articles, which represented a complex and intricate subject with careful use of what we regard as the WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area as sutra tradition Buddhists. Robert Walker (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the walls of text, the refactoring, etc. makes it hard to see what else we can do. This is a volunteer effort and it is impractical to expect anyone to read and make sense of what you're getting at. I was hoping you would see that but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. You're way too invested in this topic - work elsewhere for a bit and then let's see. --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes okay. But do you need to topic ban me to say this? Why not just kindly post to my talk page making this suggestion? I am going to take a wikibreak right now. Anyone could have suggested that at any time through these proceedings, and I'd have listened to them, indeed I'd have paid very careful attention to anyone who had made that suggestion. They didn't need to take me to WP:ANI. Just say that my verbosity was a problem again. That would have been enough. Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No. No. We have said that your verbosity is a problem many times, and you have acknowledged it, but that hasn't changed anything. It apparently is necessary to impose some sort of sanctions on you. You say that you need to be told to take a wikibreak. Okay, but - There is a type of editor in Wikipedia, of whom you are not the only one, who is passive-aggressive, who edits tendentiously in some way or other, and then, when brought up to this noticeboard, says that they plan to take a wikibreak, sometimes a long wikibreak. This does stop whatever the problem is for a while, but, after the break, they come back, and the disruptive behavior resumes, and the slate was swept clean because the community thought, in good faith, that the problem was solved, which it was, for a little while. Yes, apparently we have to take action anyway, rather than just delaying a decision until you come back and your verbosity is a problem again. I know that you mean well, but that doesn't make you a constructive editor in the long run. Yes, something has to be done other than just delaying a decision until your wikibreak is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is spot on. Look at the links above, RW. The DRN volunteer mentioned your wall of text is a problem. The RSN volunteer said the same. I said the same. RegentsPark appealed to you last week about it (again all this is linked above, in some cases with quotes). The wikipedia community is here to contribute to building a free and ever-improving encyclopedia that is available to every poor or rich fellow human being with an access to the web. It is not here to endlessly deal with your or similar disruptive behavior. We are well past the stage of cautioning, pleading, suggesting, rinsing and repeating our suggestions to you. Please reflect on the fact that you, RW, have been through this cycle before in 2016. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

But why do you take me straight to ANI without saying on my talk page that I am being too verbose? There hasn't been any example where anyone has said "We are thinking of taking you to ANI, can you do something about your behaviour"? If I felt another editor was being problematical in their behaviour I would go to their talk page and talk to them 1 on 1 about it first. You all agree that I act in good faith and am motivated and want to help wikipedia. I think you'd be surprised at what happens if you tried this. And make suggestions to help. @Softlavender: was the first one to do that with her suggestion to use the Sandbox - which would have completely eliminated the refactoring issue if someone had mentioned that to me, maybe someone did and I missed it, but nobody really tried to help with the issue to the extent of actually talking about it to me as a person in a friendly way to try to help. Robert Walker (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please read WP:TALKNO, particularly the part about admin threats. RW, you seem to be telling the community what it needs to do. It is time you took some time off and reflected on, "what do I need to do to help other editors and the wiki collaboration process?" We have been through the cycle of suggestions in 2016. Please read that entire thread. We can't keep going in passive-aggressive circles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, is that the case? But if you aren't permitted to say you are considering taking me to ANI, you could still say that I am being too verbose, There would be no need to say anything else. I'd get the hint quickly enough I assure you. I'd instantly take a wikibreak probably after the experience of all these ANI. I mean at an early stage. Not when things have got to the point where you are just about to take me to ANI pretty much no matter what I do. I've added a proposal below, that I am prepared to limit myself to one post every ... hours (any time interval) in the Buddhism topic area. Would that be a solution? How could I be too verbose if I did just one post every x hours? I have already fixed the refactoring with sandbox and in a situation like the RSN, just by understanding how the rule applies in that situation, which I somehow missed. Please see #Offer for future editing behaviour below. Robert Walker (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

9 april 2017: "Robert, you asked me before to tell you, in a kind way, when your edits were crossing a line. They are, again. We've discussed this over and over again. So, please stop, okay? Just drop it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@RW: Please see WP:WALLOFTEXT. So many editors, including DRN/RSN volunteers kept and keep reminding you of your "wall of text" issue. Please study the diff links above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Oh that was a comment you made to me immediately after you had deleted my first and succint post on the 4NT talk page for several months[131]. @Farang Rak Tham: restored it[132], @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it again along with just about everything else on the page[133] and when I protested about this on your talk page, you made this "crossed the line" comment which you just quoted[134]. As I said then, "When I asked you to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI, it wasn't intended as permission to delete my talk page posts". [135]. I think it has to be a credible line. Immediately after your own serious WP:TPO that I had crossed a line, deleting my first post after several months, how could I take that seriously?

Yes, it is true that later, when talking on the Buddha Project page when I complained there about you deleting and collapsing my posts - I'd got a bit het up about it all, and I get verbose when I get het up. I did realize this eventually by myself, and stopped and took a wikibreak. But you took me back to WP:ANI just hours into my wikibreak. That would have been a good time to warn me of my verbosity. Instead of taking me to ANI after I had already noticed my verbosity and stopped, you could have commented on it at the time when I actually was verbose. Or similarly, when I was getting over verbose on the RSN page. Then I would have seen immediately that you were right, stopped and taken a wikibreak. Timing is everything here.Robert Walker (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon got it right: RW is unhappy with the fact that "Karma in Buddhism" and "Four Noble Truths" were reworked (thanks for the honours, MSW). Robert admits this himself: "This whole thing started in 2014 when @Joshua Jonathan: rewrote what I considered to be some of the best articles in wikipedia." This rewriting was not just about primary and secondary sources, it was about WP:RS, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:RNPOV, as explained in every minute detail at the talkpages and notice-boards. I've been interacting with him now for 2,5 years; while others can summarize in a few lines what those policies imply and move on, RW is still trying to figure out what the first policy mentioned here means, nay, how he can bend it to get what he wants. So, how long will it take him to understand this first policy, let alone the rest? The Four Noble Truths article is now stuffed with references, from both Buddhists and academich scholars, and complete subsections, which answer Robert's concerns (neat summary). I've also made changes in response to the concrete suggestions he made (another neat overview). To no avail: Robert wants his preferred versions back. No arguments will help here. Despite all the explanations about this, for Robert it comes down to "I don't like it, because it does not reflect my pov." So, yes, I support a topic-ban; I've wasted so incredibly many hours on this yet, that a break is very welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Also support indef-topic-ban, following Hijiri88. Unfortunately, I don't expect Robert to change. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support-Echo RegentsPark word by word.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Having watched RW's participation at DRN and RSN, I think this is quite necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban with a possibility of review after six months. The condition for lifting the ban should be a thorough understanding of how Wikipedia policies apply to regligious topics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support I could have sworn this solution already passed one of the previous times this problem came up. Oh, well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - He was topic-banned from Four Noble Truths for six months. He came off topic-ban, and is still or again ranting that he liked it the way it was in 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Changed !vote to neutral on set-term ban as proposed, support indefinite topic ban. Robert is a repeat offender, the previous fixed term ban solved nothing, and he doesn't seem to be learning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Would you be willing to amend your proposal? An increasing number of "support"s (RsP, me, Sarah, JJ, WBoG, Jim...) are explicitly for an indef TBAN, but with the main proposal as it is and some of the "support"s not clarifying which version they support, this might wind up being one of those instances where a closer (even a non-admin closer) has complete and arbitrary freedom to super-!vote for whichever option they like. I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy, but it's also not supposed to be a tyranny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I hadn't researched the history fully when I proposed the six-month topic-ban. I remembered that then he had said he would take a wikibreak when he was at WP:ANI. I now see that he was already given a six-month topic ban. At this point I don't want to try to amend this proposal, because that will throw the !votes into question even worse than his amending of talk page posts, but I will concur with a stronger separate proposal for an indefinite topic ban. This is unfortunate, but his insistence on the use of walls of text to argue in favor of tagging is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It's not actually all that complicated. Just add an addendum immediately below your initial proposal, and ping the users who haven't explicitly supported one version or the other, which on closer examination is only two: Kautilya3 and Ealdgyth. Even if both of those users showed up and said "No, the ban should be for six months, no longer." (not actually very likely, given what they did write in their !votes) it would then be 7-2 in favour of an indef TBAN, with unanimous support for some kind of TBAN; if a closer decided to rule in favour of the 22%, one of us could easily ask for a close review. With your initial proposal as-is and a bunch of editors !voting "support" (even in a nuanced fashion), though, a closer would have more freedom to do whatever they wanted with this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Tagging of articles for POV or other issues is primarily done to relatively new articles, especially by New Page Reviewers, and is intended to get the articles fixed, not to register a long-term dissatisfaction which the poster can't solve by consensus. This has been discussed at length. Either rewrite or roll back the articles, with consensus, or leave them alone. Tagging them, after such lengthy discussion, is just a proposal for whining. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It is often used for mature articles too. Example: Jainism is currently tagged with it. That's been in wikipedia since 2002[136]. Robert Walker (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Diff for the tag [137] which was added to the Jainism article by @Ms Sarah Welch:, the same editor who removed my tag from Four Noble Truths. I found this by going to the "What links here" page for the tag and found an article in the Indian religions area tagged in the same way as I propose for FNT. The aim of a tag is to get more readers to join talk page debates and to alert readers that its neutrality has been disputed. I didn't add a tag during the previous disputes, because even adding a CN tag was immediately reverted. This time I was a bit braver, plus I'd identified not just a POV but clarified in my thought that we seem to have two distinct and very detailed SUBPOV's on the entire content of the article. That was why I felt we had a new thing to discuss, new since a month ago. Robert Walker (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment:@Robert McClenon:, I support Hijiri88´s proposal. JimRenge (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - good heavens, he's still creating walls of text in this area? Especially after the following section ... he obviously isn't getting the idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: [1] RegentsPark's suggestion of an indef Buddhism topic area ban on RW with a possibility of 6 month review by any admin; [2] Softlavendar's suggestion that RW be prohibited from "editing his posts once he has posted them, no matter whether anyone has responded to them or not. If necessary, this may be made into an administrator's official sanction in order to prevent disruption." This would apply site wide including noticeboards such as AN, DRN and RSN. [3] On "accusations/allegations without edit diffs or appropriate evidence" issue, a caution would suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with lesser sanction such as one suggested by Robert McClenon, or whatever is considered appropriate by admins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Robertinventor/Robert Walker tries to force his POV by posting walls of text. An indefinite topic ban from all Buddhism related articles is needed to prevent further disruption. JimRenge (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Offer for future editing behaviour

• I am prepared to offer to do no more than one talk page post per [unit time] in the Buddhism topic area. Time period to be arranged. Robert Walker (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May be after 6 month expires, and after an admin has reviewed your editing progress as RegentsPark suggested above. It appears your alternate (disclosed) account(s) – Robertinventor and Robert C. Walker – have been active on Talk:Microscope. Your accounts are by far the most verbose poster there as well in April 2017. I see a FORUM-y style, without links to external sources, without edit diffs, etc. There are some IPs active too, which AGF is not you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please can I remind you of WP:AGF. On that discussion see [138]. And I identify Robert Walker and Robert C Walker as the same user and explain the reason for this [139] Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - since this offer to limit my posts to say one a day, has not been accepted, I don't see how I'd ever be able to appeal an indef topic ban. This means that for the rest of my life I will never be able to mention that I'm a Buddhist to anyone on wikipedia or discuss Buddhism with anyone here. Is that a just response to someone who has been a bit verbose, who has already said that he is now using the sandbox for every post of any length, so won't be refactoring, and who has offered to limit my posts to prevent verbosity? What can I do differently in an appeal that I haven't already offered to do right here, right now? Robert Walker (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  As long as your biggest concern is not being able to tell other editors that you are a Buddhist and not being able to discuss your religion with others on Wikipedia, you're in the wrong place. You did the same thing on the microscope talk page, you weren't there to imorove the article, you disagreed with Wikipedia's no original research policy, you didn't understand the technical literature you read and you posted walls of rambling, repetitive, incomprehensible text. If you're topic banned on Buddhism articles, you will go elsewhere for discussions, but not for improving articles, then you'll disagree with a minor point of Wikipedia policy and drown other editors in walls of rambling text about your opinions, your beliefs, and your original research. --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note - this is the "flamefest" starting ip editor mentioned here: "Thanks for remaining calm despite continual provocation by the IP editor who was fanning a flamefest at Talk:Microscope. I'm just leaving this note here so that you can see that someone noticed :-] " [140] Robert Walker (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you finished refactoring this post, yet?[141][142] --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't compose that one in the sandbox because it was so short, then I needed to add the quote. It's a learning curve. This is the first post since I started using the sandbox where I posted as two edits instead of one. I'd just like to add - I am an editor in good standing with many articles to my name. I am often involved in discussions here. Here are some examples of many recent discussions: [143] [144] [145] - in the last one both me and Hucbald found that we liked writing and reading long posts - they were carefully written, scholarly and full of important details. When I need to be short I can be short too. In all my many years on wikipedia I've never had anyone complain of my verbosity anywhere except in these Buddhism topic area discussions. And since my verbosity does seem to be a problem to other editors in this particular topic area - and probably indeed because I get quite worked up about it, at times, which you can perhaps understand when you see that articles are misrepresenting your faith (as I see it). When I get het up like that I get verbose, and I don't notice it has happened until it is too late unless I get a reminder that is really clear. I notice eventually but not right away. That's why I offer to voluntarily restrict myself to, say, one post a day. I think this will end the problem. Please don't take these posts to this ANI as examples as obviously I need to defend myself here and I haven't started on any such voluntary restriction yet. I can if that is the consensus here. Robert Walker (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: No one is talking about banning you from discussing your own biography in contexts where it would not be inappropriate on Wikipedia. You are still allowed say you are a Buddhist on your user space (as long as you don't mention English Wikipedia's coverage of Buddhism or your prior disputes with other users in this area), and mention it casually in Wikipedia discussions that aren't about Wikipedia's coverage of Buddhist topics. I was in a similar situation to you last year, but there's no need to go into that. The ban would only prevent you from editing or discussing our articles on Buddhist topics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's good to know and thanks for sharing your own experiences and clarifications. Robert Walker (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed topic ban of Robert Walker from the Buddhism topic area

Well it looks as if you are going to topic ban me again. Perhaps there is nothing I can do but do let me just try to post some words in my defense, and maybe some other editors here will have another perspective on it? @Robert McClenon: You brought up several things at once, the length of my posts, the refactoring of them, the number of them. In answer to those points:

• @Softlavender:'s suggestion to use the sandbox will deal with the refactoring problem completely.

• It will also deal with the second one also to a large extent as often my editing of my posts is to deal with verbosity - you will notice that edited posts are often shorter - so if I do them in my sandbox I can reduce the length considerably.

You also say that I was warned before this But out of five times that @Joshua Jonathan: and now @Ms Sarah Welch: have taken me to WP:ANI, they have never tried a friendly resolution. Why not test me to see if I am one of those tendentious editors, by first posting to my talk page: "you are being too verbose, please take a wikibreak, or slow down".

It is easier to be succint when the editors you are talking to are also concise. @Joshua Jonathan:'s very post about my walls of text on the RSN was a wall of text [146] of 7,817 bytes. He does many replies that are thousands of bytes long including this reply to my short summary of the issues on the 4NT article: [147]. Also, many of those bullet points are short questions that require me to provide detailed evidence in response.

The central issue here is simple to state. I wish to add a POV tag to four articles on Buddhism in wikipedia, Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Anatta, and Nirvana on the basis that they do not present the views of the world faith of sutra tradition Buddhism which has over 200 million followers outside China (and a similar number in China), see Buddhism by country. I think their views on their own faith needs to be presented somewhere in wikipedia, either in the same article as the views of western academics or in separate articles for their views as a WP:SUBPOV. The opposing editors claim that western academic sources are preferred as they give a "distance" and are not coloured by our faith[148].

I can't expect you to know which of the many authors on Therevadan Buddhism are regarded as WP:RS, but can you not see that amongst a world faith with hundreds of millions of adherents and many countries that are almost entirely Buddhist such as Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan etc - that there must be some well regarded Buddhist scholars that could be used as sources for their own beliefs? Walpola Rahula and Prayudh Payutto are amongst the best regarded eminent scholars from the Buddhist scholarly traditions of Sri Lanka and Thailand respectively, with Buddhist populations of 14 million (70% of the population) for Sri Lanka and 64 million (93%) for Thailand. If I went to the RSN and asked if the Watchtower could be used as a source for the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, there would not be any question about this as everyone knows what it is, and they know that it is the main way that Jehovah's Witnesses express their beliefs. But @Dorje108: and myself are the only ones in the discussions so far from this world faith of hundreds of millions of Buddhists, and both of us say the articles are POV. The 2014 versions of the articles show that there are many well regarded WP:RS sources within the sutra traditions themselves, and these articles were in a mature state for many years before @Joshua Jonathan:'s rewrite of them to the western academic Buddhism POV. I used colour coding here to show how the new lede relies almost entirely on the western academic sources Colour Coded Four Noble Truths.

One of the most central points is that in Four Noble Truths it explains in the lede that Buddha realized cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness by first ending rebirth, so that when he died he wouldn't take rebirth again. I can understand how this may seem to make more sense to a westerner. But for sutra tradition Buddhist, they have the direction of causality here back to front. Buddha was able to say it was his last rebirth because he realized cessation and was free from Samsara already as a young man. My attempts to answer their many challenges to this, is like a Christian trying to respond to a challenge: "Christians don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus - prove it!". How can you give a short answer to that if they won't accept any of the sources that are well regarded in your faith? This is just one of the easiest to explain of numerous statements in these articles that contradict the faith of sutra tradition Buddhism, presented as an unbiased explanation of what we believe by western academics.

All I want to do is to add a POV tag, not to edit the articles. Since the neutrality itself is under dispute then as per WP:NPOVD, the first stage is to invite discussion, by adding these tags, over whether it is indeed WP:POV. And yet @Joshua Jonathan: in the last month or so has deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues, for which he apologized, @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it, they edited my POV tag when I added it to first change the talk page entry it pointed to, then remove it, then remove the tag altogether, on the basis that my claim that the article is WP:POV is invalid - but the tag just says that its neutrality is disputed. How can a dispute over whether an article is WP:POV be resolved by one of the editors in the dispute removing the tag while the dispute is in progress? Then they took me to DRN over a POV tag, when I already said on my talk page that I don't think we can solve this by DRN. Surely the unresolved DRN by itself proves that the neutrality of these articles is disputed? And I went to the RSN as a result of the recommendation of the closing editor for the DRN. Now they take me to WP:ANI twice in a single month. They have a clear editorial interest in getting me topic banned to prevent me from adding those tags. That's the background to this action. Robert Walker (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

(Incidentally I composed this message in my sandbox as you can check easily, so saving 16 minor edits :) )

From a friend's comments off wiki I discovered something is unclear here. If I am not topic banned, and I am permitted to do so, my plan is to add the four POV tags to the articles. I would add a very succint summary of the main issues as I see them - and my proposed solution to do two versions of each article similarly to the four SUBPOV articles on Resurrection of Jesus, and link to the colour coded two versions of the articles and any additional material in my own user space, not in the talk page. I would recommend that JJ and SW similarly present a succint summary of their views and put additional material in their user space. I would then step back and see if anyone comments. The main aim would be to get more editorial eyes on it, from readers of the articles. Maybe that can lead to a solution, and I feel we have taken it as far as we can in this discussion, and the solution has to come as a result of others, especially the sutra tradition Buddhists themselves, presenting their ideas and views on the topic. Robert Walker (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker, please do not present your content dispute with JoshuaJonathan and others at ANI. This discussion is about your conduct as an editor. JimRenge (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge:, I was responding to other editors here who referred to the content dispute as part of their reason for the topic ban[149]. Robert Walker (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to put in the diffs, so here again: Here @Joshua Jonathan: deleted my original post to the talk page with a short summary of the issues[150], @Ms Sarah Welch: collapsed it[151], then after I added my POV tag pointing to this list of issues, [152] they edited it so it doesn't point to any section in the talk page, then removed the tag altogether[153] while the neutrality was still disputed. Then they take me to DRN because I objected to them removing a POV tag! And now want me topic banned, which of course will prevent me from adding any POV tags. Robert Walker (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Stats

here is the diff from just before Joshua Jonathan's first edit back in December 2011, to now. Looking at the editing stats, Joshua Jonathan has made 922 edits; the next highest has 369 and the next, 90. Robertinventor has made... 2.

The Talk page is a different story. Looking at the revision stats, going in order, Robertinventor has made 815 edits and added 1048 KB; Joshua Jonathan has made 352 edits and added 451 KB, and Ms Sarah Welch has made 76 edits and added 43 KB. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If I'm reading you correctly, you are pointing out that Robertinventor talks a whole lot on the talk page while never contributing to the article itself. You are most certainly right (hence why we are here), but your methodology is a little flawed as it fails to take into account the sheer verboseness of Robertinventor's talk page posts (artificially inflating the number of bytes he has added) and the number of times he edits his own talk page comments (artificially inflating his number of edits). It's a given that Robertinventor is verbose and has a tendency to tweak his edits -- again, that's part of why we are here. I think a much more intellectually honest method (and frankly not all that much harder, depending on your browser and device) would be to Ctrl+F each editor's signature on the talk page and archives. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. I checked, and now I think a much stronger point (though one you don't appear to be trying to make) is that Robertinventor hardly ever edits articles related to Buddhism, period. His most-edited article that is clearly within this topic is Karma, which is #24 on his list of articles by number of edits. Next is History of Tibet at #43, followed by Pāli Canon at #50. These top three combined account for a total of 31 edits, and I can't find any other "Buddhism-related" article he has edited more than 3 times. A TBAN won't prevent him from editing articles on topics he is interested in, so this is cut-and-dry. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jvm21 (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This editor was recently brought to ANI with regards to them creating articles that don't meet the notability requirements of WP:NMOTORSPORT, and to a lesser degree, their continued personal attacks. The outcome of that ANI thread (from only 10 days ago), was a note dropped on their talkpage by Neil. Since then, several more articles have been proded , with Jvm21 notified on their talkpage with User:GoldenRing dropping a polite note not to continue with the creation of these n/n articles. This provoked this reply from Jvm21 on GR's talkpage (diff). Since then, Jvm21 continues to ignore other editors and the notability guidelines and creates more non-notable articles. This again provkes a personal attack to the editor proding the article (User:Corvus tristis).

Their talkpage, constant personal attacks and failure to engage with other editors and/or projects to address the concerns tells me this editor is WP:NOTHERE and continues with their disruption. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would have first suggested a provision that requires Jvm to go through AfR from now on but the personal attacks and blatant refusal to adhere to advice and policy makes me guess it will not go well. A block probably is the only way to get to an editor like this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked for a week. Their previous comments, which I have linked in the block notice, are clearly not acceptable. The persistent creation of non-notable racing driver BLPs is a secondary issue - if they cannot play nicely with others, this is not the place for them. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks BK. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And after this response, I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. I'm generally of the opinion that allowing a blocked editor a little leeway to vent on their talk page can be a good thing. But this seems like a long-term characteristic rather than a temporary over-reaction, and as it's only for a week I think it would help them stop digging deeper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.